Do you think college should be free?

[PetraG]

Begging the question your pardon, but I wouldn’t presume to think that American public schools are creating a literate and educated populace. 40% of the seniors at my local high school aren’t grade level proficient in math, English and science, and I live in an affluent area of the country. In other well off areas it’s 60%. These are schools that were highly rated just 10 years ago. They aren’t serving the purpose for which they supposedly exist for nearly half the students. I’m not sure how we can justify taxing the homeowners for results this atrocious.

Seeing how much time is spent trying to acculturate the students to the new, highly “liberal” “norm” and the avalanche of ESL students being mixed with students who speak English fluently, it doesn’t seem to me that education is the priority.

Education of the young is paramount; that includes their religious instruction, which public schools should not provide considering their secular origin, but they excel at providing the secular “theology” whether the parents wish it or not; education, not so much. Secular public education is not a good model nor is it a mandatory model to follow to educate the poor. Moreover, it is not used only to merely ensure even the poorest among us is able to receive a minimum of education, unless we are going to call all but those who can afford private schools poor. There may be an argument for that, but…

Do you know what is tied to low achievement? Start with absenteeism. Check the schools districts with the worst-performing students, and the chances are that the students are skipping a lot of school and have chaotic home lives. Teachers cannot teach students who aren’t there or who aren’t all there.

Try students who come to school expecting to be stimulated or entertained, who have had their attention span stunted with excessive screen time. Try students whose ONLY language is English who do no reading outside of school time, who aren’t read to as small children. There are too many parents who send their children to public school expecting that an education degree confers the ability to pour an education into the child’s left ear. While they are running around. Don’t blame all of that on how much time teachers have to plug their personal views of the world into students. Private schools start with the advantage that it takes a plugged-in parent to get the student in the door and any student can be shown the door if they’re dragging everyone else down. That is an extremely large advantage.

If you are only saying that our K-12 public schools are in a state that some subsidy of higher education is all we can afford, I can buy that. If you’re saying that our society would be better-served by finding ways to improve quality and job preparation at the K-12 level, I can buy that. I don’t buy that the problem of secular values is why the schools have ill-educated graduates. No, the K-12 school districts with the most college-educated parents figure out how to do the best by about every metric, and that isn’t because they’re all religious or because they don’t have liberal ideals in their curricula.

 

[Taxx]

Yep . Federal student’s loans.have currupted the college costs. And now the tax payer has to pick up the cost. Of default.

 

[casslean]

“So, for example, if you plan on making $60,000 out of college, you should not take on more than $60,000 in loans. If you plan to make $60,000, but your education will cost $180,000, don’t do it!”

I think the fact that we’ve normalized students graduating with $60k in debt to get a job that pays $60k a year is frankly horrifying.

Starting salary for my career was $58-80k, depending where I chose to live. I graduated with about $40k in debt. That was with full scholarships, working summers and part-time during the school year, all of it. I did not live extravagantly. I shared cheap accommodations (often in shady parts of town) and made every cent count.

I currently pay $600 a MONTH in student loan debt. The interest rate on my loan is prime +3.5%. I have no ability to negotiate that, because it’s a government standard.

Oh, and when I went to university, what I was told, by the officials from whom I was borrowing student loans, was not to worry because if I completed my programs, a good portion of my debt would be forgiven. What they failed to tell me was that they could rescind that program at any time and they did, six months before I graduated.

The system is broken, and the insistence that it’s simply the fault of students who have no power in the equation will ensure it remains broken.

 

[PetraG]

I think the fact that we’ve normalized students graduating with $60k in debt to get a job that pays $60k a year is frankly horrifying.

Starting salary for my career was $58-80k, depending where I chose to live. I graduated with about $40k in debt. That was with full scholarships, working summers and part-time during the school year, all of it. I did not live extravagantly. I shared cheap accommodations (often in shady parts of town) and made every cent count.

I currently pay $600 a MONTH in student loan debt. The interest rate on my loan is prime +3.5%. I have no ability to negotiate that, because it’s a government standard.

Oh, and when I went to university, what I was told, by the officials from whom I was borrowing student loans, was not to worry because if I completed my programs, a good portion of my debt would be forgiven. What they failed to tell me was that they could rescind that program at any time and they did, six months before I graduated.

The system is broken, and the insistence that it’s simply the fault of students who have no power in the equation will ensure it remains broken.

The flip side is the number of parents who are retiring with next-to-no retirement savings because they put paying for their childrens’ college ahead of saving for their own retirement.

Having said that, I don’t see the private sector going for it when the post-secondary educational system is helping so many people get educations that don’t translate into anything their employers want. Why would they? I am all for education, but I believe in recipricocity in the social contract, too. Most people quite sensibly think that learning things that don’t do a thing for anybody but the individual ought to be paid for by the individual, not by taxpayers who get essentially no benefit from it.

 

[1cthlctrth]

No way. Other than military schools, most of the elitist colleges have zero (or very few) Republican or Conservative professors. The biggest problem with colleges could be their lack of diversity (in ideology, of course. Leftists misrepresent “diversity” as color of skin and other appearances.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No way. Other than military schools, most of the elitist colleges have zero (or very few) Republican or Conservative professors.

If you properly define “conservative”, you will find a good number of conservative professors. But today in the age of Trump, “Republican” or “conservative” is defined so narrowly that few academics would qualify.

 

[Taxx]

Yes you are right I worked at the University of Arizona. And it liberal

 

[Ignatius]

First, there is no such thing as free, if the student doesn’t pay for it the money is taken from someone else and they are not receiving the education. That is unjust.
Secondly, it encourages inflation college tuition and fees beyond the ability of students to pay for it.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Thanks for your reply. You get an “A” for effort.
In recently released research conducted by National Association of Scholars’ (NAS) Mitchell Langbert of Brooklyn College, 8,688 fulltime professors with Ph.D.’s from a sample of 51 of the 60 top-ranked liberal arts colleges – as ranked by a 2017 U.S. News report – were surveyed, and overall results reveal that for every 10 professors who register as Democrat, there is only one registered Republican professor
The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent – with a few important exceptions – is slightly more than zero percent, but, nevertheless, absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation,” Langbert added. “Thus, 78.2 percent of the academic departments in my sample have either zero Republicans – or so few as to make no difference.”

https://onenewsnow.com/education/2018/05/05/39-of-colleges-have-0-republican-professors

Nearly 60 percent (5,197) of the entire sampling registered as either Republican or Democrat, with results showing that the mean Democratic-to-Republican ratio (D:R) is more than 10 to 1 (10.4:1), and when excluding two relatively conservative military colleges – West Point and Annapolis – the ratio is even more daunting, at nearly 13 to 1 (12.7:1).

 

[mythbuster1]

We seriously need to reform the way colleges are structured. The nonsense classes can add a year to a degree while providing no value to the student. In ROTC, all majors have to be approved by a commissioned officer to ensure that the taxpayer money is not being wasted on useless degrees.

 

[Theo520]

If you properly define “conservative”, you will find a good number of conservative professors. But today in the age of Trump, “Republican” or “conservative” is defined so narrowly that few academics would qualify

I find the complete opposite to be true, Trump has expanded what’s allowed and still be called a republican, he’s certainly not narrowed it down.

 

[chessnerd321]

No I don’t think college should be free. There’s lots of college degrees gaining popularity that either have no job prospects or only help you get jobs you can get without a degree (or could’ve gotten without a degree before this trend caught on). I would have serious reservations about paying for such a degree for my kids. Why would I do so for a stranger?

That said I wouldn’t want the government deciding what a “fundable” degree is and what isn’t. So the best model is to let people decide what they want to spend their cash on.

That said college expenses have gone up and up. Some of the biggest reasons are increasingly out of proportion of highly-paid administrators and ever nicer and more expensive student housing. The solution to either of those problems is beyond me, but taxpayer enablement isn’t what we need. We need to fix the root of the issue.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think it is notable that 61% of professors do not register in either party. This makes the 10:1 D/R statistic less significant. It is hard to see how 39% of professors can be used to conclude much about higher education, especially in the STEM fields that more likely be made free.

 

[1cthlctrth]

Please inform me where you got the idea that only 39% of professors are registered with either political Party. Thanks.

 

[Theo520]

Please inform me where you got the idea that only 39% of professors are registered with either political Party. Thanks.

Here is some actual research, which indicates 60% are registered

Homogenous: The Political Affiliations of Elite Liberal Arts College Faculty by Mitchell Langbert | NAS

My sample of 8,688 tenure track, Ph.D.–holding professors from fifty-one of the sixty-six top ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. News 2017 report consists of 5,197, or 59.8 percent, who are registered either Republican or Democrat.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Please inform me where you got the idea that only 39% of professors are registered with either political Party. Thanks.

That was my understand from your posting when you said “The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent….” Remaining from what? I assumed you meant remaining after removing the registered Democrats and registered Republicans. If that is not what you meant then I accept Theo520’s correction, and there I see where you got your confusing quote.

So, accepting the statistics at face value, what are we to make of it? Does this indicate some sinister vetting process that systematically excludes Republicans from professorships? If so, who are these master decision makers? How do they stay coordinated?

On the other hand, if this statistical imbalance arose organically and not from any top-level forcing, that raises questions no one has raised here yet, such as why do Republican academics choose not to teach at elite liberal arts colleges? Could it be that Republicans lately have been less kindly disposed to higher education in general, thus encouraging the dominance of Democrats in the field? Or is it because there are not very many Republican academics? That’s can’t be, because as Theo’s article points out, there are some colleges that have mostly Republican professors.

That’s brings us to the final question of what to do about it, if anything. Do we establish a quota system whereby any university that receives federal funds must have at least 40% registered Republicans and 40% registered Democrats? Do we cut funds to higher education in general?

And to return to the topic of this thread “Do you think college should be free?”, I don’t think very many proponents of free college are supporting free elite liberal arts colleges. They are talking mostly about two year colleges, trade schools, or four year programs related to STEM subjects, or business administration, or something that will help a person prosper. Nobody in this thread is suggesting that we pay for students to sit around and discuss ways in which the government can be made to serve the wishes of a liberal agenda. (or the conservative agenda either, for that matter.)

 

[chessnerd321]

They are talking mostly about two year colleges, trade schools, or four year programs related to STEM subjects, or business administration, or something that will help a person prosper.

I frankly find that unlikely given how much comparison there is to nations like Germany. To my knowledge there’s not a lot of regulation on what people study there. It’s all free. To be fair, I’ve heard some politicians talk about making all community colleges free, but usually in the context of a partial solution or stepping stone. (And frankly that’s a horrible idea I’d rather they made state schools free if we HAVE to go this route.)

Also, do you really want the government deciding what’s worthwhile study? In addition, I hope we can all agree that college is just too expensive. Why wouldn’t we work on lowering the cost of college? It seems like having the taxpayers pay everybody’s college really just enables the system to maintain these extreme prices.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

They are talking mostly about two year colleges, trade schools, or four year programs related to STEM subjects, or business administration, or something that will help a person prosper.

I frankly find that unlikely given how much comparison there is to nations like Germany. To my knowledge there’s not a lot of regulation on what people study there.

The fear of what might happen is valid, but overstated. This risk of not having an educated population is greater than the risk of having a population all studying underwater basket weaving, or similar non-productive pursuits. If we offer two or four years of tax-supported education, most people will want to take advantage of that chance in a way that will benefit them after college is over. And besides, I don’t think it is impossible to structure a higher education subsidy in a way that best suits American, not German, values.

Why wouldn’t we work on lowering the cost of college?

The two efforts are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ecuman]

It would be yet another “government paid” item that would spiral out of control with added costs, regulations and stipulations.

 

[chessnerd321]

If we offer two or four years of tax-supported education, most people will want to take advantage of that chance in a way that will benefit them after college is over.

I see absolutely no reason to believe this whatsoever. People are current going into $100k debt to get these degrees and you would have me believe that once Uncle Sam is paying they won’t?

I don’t think it is impossible to structure a higher education subsidy in a way that best suits American, not German, values.

Well, I think the system we have is pretty close to America values, with a reasonable cost. If the cost was reasonable we wouldn’t be having this conversation. 50 years ago a motivated poor person could pay their way with Pell Grants and subsidised loans and hard work. If we got back to that system much of the issue would disappear.

The state governments already spend loads of money on school. It’s not as if it’s a private sector industry (really it’s not an industry at all). But yes we could even increase state support without going into a German model. But that isn’t what’s being proposed, which was my point.

The two efforts are not mutually exclusive.

Of course not, but we should see if we can go back to the old system before trying something new. Once governments are given a power they rarely give it up. They also tend to expand it over time. I don’t want the government to have ever-increasing control over higher education. And if we can avoid that, then in my opinion we should.

I also think your faith in the government to cut costs is quite misplaced. It should be clear by now they don’t give a hoot how much they indebt our children and grandchildren.