Could Free College work in America?

[Rohzek]

I’m all for more affordable college tuition, but not free college. And, like some other posters, I don’t want my tax dollars to be spent on useless degrees like Renaissance French, Creative Writing, Poetry, etc. I do have a Masters in French, but it’s modern day French, and that degree I paid for myself.

Personally, I think we need to put more emphasis on excellence in trade and technical schools. Schools that prepare a person for a job, even a highly paid job in some instances. We need to eliminate useless programs. For instance, why does a civil engineer or someone in IT have to have a certain number of psychology credits? They will never use them. We are wasting our resources. I’m not saying we should eliminate psychology. Those who want to be psychologists need those courses. But I didn’t for my degree in French, yet I had to take them, and I had to take more for my degree in theology. More concentration on the major and less on the “other stuff.” I can understand why everyone should take English. Writing clearly is necessary in almost every job, but history? It makes one a more well rounded person, educationally, but other than that, it’s a waste of time and money except for historians.

If you’ve ever been subjected to English literature academic writing, you should know that a lot of them are terrible writers with obscure postmodern-tinged arguments. If you read medieval literature articles, they tend to be much better but only because they are more grounded like history. People who take history tend to write better, and yield more informed arguments and activism than people who major in English, at least from my experience. As for History or any other English/Literature degrees being useless, they are not. You either go on to teach after teaching certification, go on to get an advanced in something using the crucial writing, researching, and argumentative skills honed getting the BA (such as a law degree), or try to go down the road of PhD in History or whatever specific subject.

In all honesty, no disrespect to you, but I truly find it odd that someone who has majored in theology would be one to talk down to people getting their degrees in history but don’t go on to be historians and other liberal arts. It is strange only because less people in this world care about or have use for theology than the number of people who have use for history (historians and non-historians alike). Politicians, political scientists, etc. all use history to their advantage. The only people who tend to care about theology are theologians themselves or the avid amateur enthusiast such as myself. Many pastors and priests even don’t always concern themselves with theology beyond the very rudimentary basics.

Lastly, the purpose of taking courses outside your major is to give yourself the opportunity to increase your perspectives and perhaps indulge in some sort of creativity in your own field. For example, I’ve found generative grammar (Chomskyean linguistics), psychology, cognitive science, and philosophy incredibly useful for my own research and assessment of medieval history. No subject exists in a box.

Sure, us Liberal Arts majors initially earn less than most others who get a professional or pre-professional degrees. However, over the long haul we actually outperform those people:

insidehighered.com/news/2014/01/22/see-how-liberal-arts-grads-really-fare-report-examines-long-term-data

aacu.org/nchems-report

We might not earn as much as mechanical engineers, but that’s no black mark.

As for successful people who got their BA’s in history, but didn’t go on to be historians, see the following:

history.illinois.edu/undergraduate/history/

cas.bethel.edu/dept/history/famous_majors

 

[styrgwillidar]

For those talking about investing our money in education, let’s be clear. We’re not talking about our money. We’ve already spent our money, we’ve also committed quite a lot of our children’s and grandchildren’s future earnings as well.

We’re putting a whole lot on a credit card we expect someone in the future to be paying off.

If we want to spend our money on education (as opposed to future generations money), then first*** we ***need to pay off all the debt we’ve racked up, provide enough for the unfunded liabilities. Then figure out what we’re going to cut and give up to shift whatever money is available after that-- however many decades in the future into education.

Our current debt. usdebtclock.org/

18.4 Trillion dollars in debt
97.6 Trillion in unfunded liabilities
(of course that’s just the federal level. Depending on your state and local governments you can add quite a bit on top of that)

Of course, if the fed didn’t back student loans and the universities/tech schools/banks were on the hook for defaults-- they’d be more careful lending money, students would pursue degrees with an understanding of their potential to pay off the loans, and colleges/universities would charge considerably less. Given that many top-line universities have such large endowments they wouldn’t have to charge a dime to the students and still have their portfolio growing-- perhaps a tax on endowments/or endowment growth not re-invested directly into facilities/staff/student benefits to encourage universities using their endowments would be helpful.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

For those talking about investing our money in education, let’s be clear. We’re not talking about our money. We’ve already spent our money, we’ve also committed quite a lot of our children’s and grandchildren’s future earnings as well.

We’re putting a whole lot on a credit card we expect someone in the future to be paying off.

If we want to spend our money on education (as opposed to future generations money), then first*** we ***need to pay off all the debt we’ve racked up, provide enough for the unfunded liabilities. Then figure out what we’re going to cut and give up to shift whatever money is available after that-- however many decades in the future into education.

Our current debt. usdebtclock.org/

18.4 Trillion dollars in debt
97.6 Trillion in unfunded liabilities
(of course that’s just the federal level. Depending on your state and local governments you can add quite a bit on top of that)

Of course, if the fed didn’t back student loans and the universities/tech schools/banks were on the hook for defaults-- they’d be more careful lending money, students would pursue degrees with an understanding of their potential to pay off the loans, and colleges/universities would charge considerably less. Given that many top-line universities have such large endowments they wouldn’t have to charge a dime to the students and still have their portfolio growing-- perhaps a tax on endowments/or endowment growth not re-invested directly into facilities/staff/student benefits to encourage universities using their endowments would be helpful.

Very good points.

The more you think about it…government education is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme.

All the more reason to totally privatize education.

 

[Tomdstone]

For those talking about investing our money in education, let’s be clear. We’re not talking about our money. We’ve already spent our money, we’ve also committed quite a lot of our children’s and grandchildren’s future earnings as well.

We’re putting a whole lot on a credit card we expect someone in the future to be paying off.

If we want to spend our money on education (as opposed to future generations money), then first*** we ***need to pay off all the debt we’ve racked up, provide enough for the unfunded liabilities. Then figure out what we’re going to cut and give up to shift whatever money is available after that-- however many decades in the future into education.

Our current debt. usdebtclock.org/

18.4 Trillion dollars in debt
97.6 Trillion in unfunded liabilities
(of course that’s just the federal level. Depending on your state and local governments you can add quite a bit on top of that)

Of course, if the fed didn’t back student loans and the universities/tech schools/banks were on the hook for defaults-- they’d be more careful lending money, students would pursue degrees with an understanding of their potential to pay off the loans, and colleges/universities would charge considerably less. Given that many top-line universities have such large endowments they wouldn’t have to charge a dime to the students and still have their portfolio growing-- perhaps a tax on endowments/or endowment growth not re-invested directly into facilities/staff/student benefits to encourage universities using their endowments would be helpful.

Why does the debt have to be paid off? Anyway, the US assets far exceed the US debt. Paul Krugman says that austerity is a bad thing and it ruins the economy.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Very good points.

The more you think about it…government education is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme.

All the more reason to totally privatize education.

Can you name one economy with a totally privatized education?

 

[Theo520]

Why does the debt have to be paid off? Anyway, the US assets far exceed the US debt. Paul Krugman says that austerity is a bad thing and it ruins the economy.

ROFL, are you suggesting we sell off Yellowstone Park to the Japanese, they’ll raise the entry fees In that vein why do progs protest when the US auctions off drilling rights, since that’s the only non tax way to bring in revenue.

Or were you assuming the privately held assets in the US somehow are collateral that belonged to the Federal Govt?

You should read your Krugman better, he’s not a fan of** austerity during a recession**, our recession ended in 2009. The research shows that recovery and growth (post recession) is much stronger when debt is lower.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Can you name one economy with a totally privatized education?

No. Not off the top of my head…but if one existed it would be far more effective, efficient, and successful than any government education.

 

[shockerfan]

Why does the debt have to be paid off? Anyway, the US assets far exceed the US debt. Paul Krugman says that austerity is a bad thing and it ruins the economy.

The US pays around $200B per year in interest. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that amount to be around $800B by the end of the decade.

Is that a good thing?

Do you think never paying off your credit cards is a good thing?

Do you think spending your children’s money, and your children’s children’s money is a good thing?

If the US did not have to pay $200B-$800B in interest payments, we could actually lower taxes AND provide more scholarships for college. Wouldn’t that be a good thing?

Do you

 

[Tomdstone]

The US pays around $200B per year in interest. The Congressional Budget Office is projecting that amount to be around $800B by the end of the decade.

Is that a good thing?

Do you think never paying off your credit cards is a good thing?

Do you think spending your children’s money, and your children’s children’s money is a good thing?

It is a good thing because the interest is paid to bond holders who spend the money. Austerity and balancing the government budget leads to unemployment and poverty as we see in many countries in Europe today. The assets of the US far exceed any debt paid. It is like a home mortgage. If there were no such thing as a home mortgage, how many people would be living in tents? The debt arising from home mortgages has a whole lot of benefits to many American families. As the Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, in times of economic recession, austerity is bad, balancing the budget is bad and government debt and printing money is good for the economy and the well being of the country.
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?_r=0

 

[Lily_Bernans]

If you’ve ever been subjected to English literature academic writing, you should know that a lot of them are terrible writers with obscure postmodern-tinged arguments. If you read medieval literature articles, they tend to be much better but only because they are more grounded like history. People who take history tend to write better, and yield more informed arguments and activism than people who major in English, at least from my experience. As for History or any other English/Literature degrees being useless, they are not. You either go on to teach after teaching certification, go on to get an advanced in something using the crucial writing, researching, and argumentative skills honed getting the BA (such as a law degree), or try to go down the road of PhD in History or whatever specific subject.

In all honesty, no disrespect to you, but I truly find it odd that someone who has majored in theology would be one to talk down to people getting their degrees in history but don’t go on to be historians and other liberal arts. It is strange only because less people in this world care about or have use for theology than the number of people who have use for history (historians and non-historians alike). Politicians, political scientists, etc. all use history to their advantage. The only people who tend to care about theology are theologians themselves or the avid amateur enthusiast such as myself. Many pastors and priests even don’t always concern themselves with theology beyond the very rudimentary basics.

Lastly, the purpose of taking courses outside your major is to give yourself the opportunity to increase your perspectives and perhaps indulge in some sort of creativity in your own field. For example, I’ve found generative grammar (Chomskyean linguistics), psychology, cognitive science, and philosophy incredibly useful for my own research and assessment of medieval history. No subject exists in a box.

Sure, us Liberal Arts majors initially earn less than most others who get a professional or pre-professional degrees. However, over the long haul we actually outperform those people:

insidehighered.com/news/2014/01/22/see-how-liberal-arts-grads-really-fare-report-examines-long-term-data

aacu.org/nchems-report

We might not earn as much as mechanical engineers, but that’s no black mark.

As for successful people who got their BA’s in history, but didn’t go on to be historians, see the following:

history.illinois.edu/undergraduate/history/

cas.bethel.edu/dept/history/famous_majors

I’m not talking down anyone getting any degree. I just don’t think the taxpayers ought to have to fund MFAs in Creative Writing or Poetry, and one can get an MFA in Poetry. Sure, they would be qualified to teach, but they probably wouldn’t get a job teaching. They could probably apply for an editor’s job at a publishing house if they lived in NYC. I had to take history, and it did nothing to help me. English Composition did. Just writing all the hundreds of papers and having to format them in APA or MLA helped me greatly.

I have degrees in French and drama as well as theology. However, I paid for my degrees myself. I wouldn’t expect any taxpayer to fund my degree. Most people don’t want a degree in French or drama or theology, though. That’s why I said the degrees that lead to jobs and productive workers and more taxpayers are worth funding, to a certain extent. I certainly don’t believe college should be free. The quality of the instruction would immediately go down. Way down. Before I would ever take a pay cut, I would go back to my very lucrative job in PR, no matter how much I loved theology. I could teach RCIA at my parish or work for the bishop.

 

[shockerfan]

It is a good thing because the interest is paid to bond holders who spend the money.

Like the Chinese who spend the money on building weapons to aim at us?

Austerity and balancing the government budget leads to unemployment and poverty as we see in many countries in Europe today.

So it was a bad thing when Bill Clinton and the Republican congress balanced the budget? I don’t remember seeing poverty go up then.

The assets of the US far exceed any debt paid. It is like a home mortgage. If there were no such thing as a home mortgage, how many people would be living in tents? The debt arising from home mortgages has a whole lot of benefits to many American families.

And…what happend a few years ago when people were unable to pay their mortgages? Do you remember??? Perhaps something around 2008??? When people’s income was unable to keep up with their debt? Wasn’t it a whole bunch of people with the same problem…hmmmm???

As the Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman has pointed out, in times of economic recession, austerity is bad, balancing the budget is bad and government debt and printing money is good for the economy and the well being of the country.
krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/?_r=0

We’re not in a recession currently.

 

[Tomdstone]

Like the Chinese who spend the money on building weapons to aim at us?

So it was a bad thing when Bill Clinton and the Republican congress balanced the budget? I don’t remember seeing poverty go up then.

And…what happend a few years ago when people were unable to pay their mortgages? Do you remember??? Perhaps something around 2008??? When people’s income was unable to keep up with their debt? Wasn’t it a whole bunch of people with the same problem…hmmmm???

We’re not in a recession currently.

Unfortunately for your argument Republican Vice President Dick Cheney declared in 2002, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/reagan-proved-deficits-dont-matter

 

[stinkcat_14]

No. Not off the top of my head…but if one existed it would be far more effective, efficient, and successful than any government education.

If one has never existed, how would you know that it would be efficient and successful?

 

[Theo520]

Unfortunately for your argument Republican Vice President Dick Cheney declared in 2002, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/reagan-proved-deficits-dont-matter

Wow, you must be really desperate to quote Cheney as your excuse

Do you acknowledge that Krugman was talking about austerity during a recession, and ours ended in 2009?

 

[Rohzek]

I’m not talking down anyone getting any degree.

When one declares that some degrees are of less public value and therefore should not received public funding while others do, the individual implicitly states that those degrees are relatively inferior.

Sure, they would be qualified to teach, but they probably wouldn’t get a job teaching.

Which an oddity compared to the rest of the world. For example, if someone in Spain gets a masters in Math or Biology, they automatically qualify to teach high school. Meanwhile, here in the USA one still has to jump through hoops or go back to get an entirely new degree.

I have degrees in French and drama as well as theology. However, I paid for my degrees myself. I wouldn’t expect any taxpayer to fund my degree. Most people don’t want a degree in French or drama or theology, though. That’s why I said the degrees that lead to jobs and productive workers and more taxpayers are worth funding, to a certain extent.

The problem with your thinking is that almost every degree leads to better yearly income for any individual. As a result, generally anyone with a BA or BS becomes richer. And when people become richer, they pay more in taxes. The people who major in creative writing, etc. will most certainly not earn as much as a mechanical engineer. But they will earn more over their lifetime than someone without a college degree. Hence, again they pay more taxes and contribute to the growth of the GDP of the nation as a whole. So there is no reason to prevent certain people pursuing the so-called “useless or nonproductive” degrees from receiving a free college education. They still yield a financial net-profit for the coffers of the state, if that’s really what you’re concerned about.

I certainly don’t believe college should be free. The quality of the instruction would immediately go down. Way down. Before I would ever take a pay cut, I would go back to my very lucrative job in PR, no matter how much I loved theology. I could teach RCIA at my parish or work for the bishop.

The quality of education in Europe, where college is largely free, is actually quite superb. The only major edge that US universities have over European ones tends to be R&D, in which much of the funding comes from the military.

As for pay cuts, generally the pay has been cut for professors for years. The raises don’t keep up relative to inflation. So in reality they lose real wages or salaries over time. I don’t see how having public universities truly made public would lead to a decrease in real salaries. In fact, the decrease of professors’ pay started when the states and the federal government gradually reduced the amount of funding they contribute to the universities in conjunction with the middle class’ yearly income stagnation beginning in the late 1970’s. Therefore, one could very well argue that inserting the public sector once again into the so-called higher education “public” institutions would actually increase the pay of professors.

 

[Tomdstone]

Wow, you must be really desperate to quote Cheney as your excuse

Why? Weren’t Cheney, Bush and Reagan great Republican leaders? Is it not true that the Republican vice President Dick Cheney said: **“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
**

 

[Rohzek]

Why? Weren’t Cheney, Bush and Reagan great Republican leaders? Is it not true that the Republican vice President Dick Cheney said: **“Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
**

Deficits really don’t matter as long as the USA has the power and prestige to convince the world that its debts don’t matter. Should the dollar lose its influence in the oil trade or the USA withdraw from the world, then almost inevitably it will have to undergo serious financial restructuring. Luckily, withdrawing from the world would free up a lot of money used for the US Military, so there is some silver-lining in the potential bad news.

There is a great American proverb that goes something like this:

“If you owe the bank $100,000, then the bank owns you. If you owe the bank $100,000,000, then you own the bank.”

The saying really captures the oddities of banking systems, etc.

 

[shockerfan]

Unfortunately for your argument Republican Vice President Dick Cheney declared in 2002, “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”
crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/reagan-proved-deficits-dont-matter

non-answer.

But when that is all you have…knock yourself out

 

[Lily_Bernans]

When one declares that some degrees are of less public value and therefore should not received public funding while others do, the individual implicitly states that those degrees are relatively inferior.

Which an oddity compared to the rest of the world. For example, if someone in Spain gets a masters in Math or Biology, they automatically qualify to teach high school. Meanwhile, here in the USA one still has to jump through hoops or go back to get an entirely new degree.

The problem with your thinking is that almost every degree leads to better yearly income for any individual. As a result, generally anyone with a BA or BS becomes richer. And when people become richer, they pay more in taxes. The people who major in creative writing, etc. will most certainly not earn as much as a mechanical engineer. But they will earn more over their lifetime than someone without a college degree. Hence, again they pay more taxes and contribute to the growth of the GDP of the nation as a whole. So there is no reason to prevent certain people pursuing the so-called “useless or nonproductive” degrees from receiving a free college education. They still yield a financial net-profit for the coffers of the state, if that’s really what you’re concerned about.

The quality of education in Europe, where college is largely free, is actually quite superb. The only major edge that US universities have over European ones tends to be R&D, in which much of the funding comes from the military.

As for pay cuts, generally the pay has been cut for professors for years. The raises don’t keep up relative to inflation. So in reality they lose real wages or salaries over time. I don’t see how having public universities truly made public would lead to a decrease in real salaries. In fact, the decrease of professors’ pay started when the states and the federal government gradually reduced the amount of funding they contribute to the universities in conjunction with the middle class’ yearly income stagnation beginning in the late 1970’s. Therefore, one could very well argue that inserting the public sector once again into the so-called higher education “public” institutions would actually increase the pay of professors.

I know about European colleges. I got a certificate in financial analysis at the University of Zuerich, and advanced degrees in drama and French at the University of Paris. I got my theology degrees in the US, however.

I know people with college degrees are SAID to make more, but my experience hasn’t shown this to be true. I made MUCH more in PR when I didn’t have all these degrees, I have a relative in IT who is a few courses short of graduation and makes $140/hour, and I know someone with an MFA in Creative Writing who makes nothing at all. No one will hire her. I know someone with a degree in History who teaches high school algebra. All you have to do is get a teaching certificate. At least that’s what he did. Maybe something has changed now. I don’t know much about high school teaching.

 

[Theo520]

Teaching in the US requires a BA in Education as a minimum. If you have a BA in some other relevant field, you can usually take education specific courses to obtain your teaching certification, but you must have a BA and pass teaching subject specific exam.

Most people in PR do have a degree. I’m sure you knew advanced degrees in Drama, French and Theology would not really increase your employability in the general market.

I know about European colleges. I got a certificate in financial analysis at the University of Zuerich, and advanced degrees in drama and French at the University of Paris. I got my theology degrees in the US, however.

I know people with college degrees are SAID to make more, but my experience hasn’t shown this to be true. I made MUCH more in PR when I didn’t have all these degrees, I have a relative in IT who is a few courses short of graduation and makes $140/hour, and I know someone with an MFA in Creative Writing who makes nothing at all. No one will hire her. I know someone with a degree in History who teaches high school algebra. All you have to do is get a teaching certificate. At least that’s what he did. Maybe something has changed now. I don’t know much about high school teaching.