Do you think college should be free?

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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?

Self interest is the reason. And you are wrong that people are going $100k into debt for underwater basket weaving degrees. They are going into debt for degrees they had good reason to believe would be profitable. The economy changed and some of them found out they had been misled. Uncle Sam paying for that will not make bad decisions any more likely. In fact with proper controls on what is subsidized, it could make things somewhat better.

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.

Nothing specific is being proposed. It is an open discussion on should college be free. That includes all variations on “free college.” It is noted that you don’t like the German variation (whatever that is). I won’t pursue it.

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.

What old system was that? I thought we were in the old system. What recent changes do you think took us away from the “old” system?

 

[Theo520]

Of course not, but we should see if we can go back to the old system before trying something new.

With the old system, state universities were subsidized by the States using their tax dollars.
With the new system all will be paid for by Free federal money, that’s why it’s the ideal solution

 

[Taxx]

Federal school loans took us off the old system.
I saw this in small private college’s. Applying to become part of the federal loan system.
Then they raised the tuition.

 

[Cruciferi]

NOPE…​

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Usige]

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.

I think that’s the rub. I have no problem providing funding for areas we are short of skills. There is s deficit of nurses? Happy to see subsidized school for them. Short electricians? By all means supply funds to get people trained. Live in Montana and want a marine biology degree so you can hang at the beach? Not unless we have a dearth of people studying squid mating patterns. (yes, I had several friend that choose marine biology for that reason - not one works in the field 20 years later; seems there was more time in the lab than on the beach)

I look at a friend from Italy where his sister got a (nearly) free degree in fine art and sculpture. When she could only find work with commercial studios doing commissioned work she turned her nose up at taking the jobs because she didn’t want to do “that type of work”. Since she wasn’t working, she didn’t pay any taxes and basically drained resources without contributing back into the pool.

I would happily become a professional student and study one field after another until the day I die, but does society owe me personal fulfillment if that investment never reaps a return?

Many schools will let you audit classes for a reduced cost if you don’t want to apply it towards a degree. If the sole goal is personal enrichmemt then go that route, but having society pay 80k for a performing arts degree only to see 5-10k in taxes over 10 years sounds like providing for a person’s wants not the needs of the individual or society as a whole.

 

[PetraG]

Don’t get me started on degrees that have “studies” in the name. I’d worry that they’d make it harder to get a job instead of easier, because so many times the publicity about them is that everyone else’s thinking is all wrong. (Academics have to think up something original…) Employers don’t necessarily want internal thought police.
Getting a job shouldn’t be a “low” reason to go to a university any more than employability or the ability to get along with extended family should be a “low” consideration in choosing a spouse. Excitement is fine, but it isn’t the ultimate goal of life.

 

[Theo520]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Usige]

Getting a job shouldn’t be a “low” reason to go to a university any more than employability or the ability to get along with extended family should be a “low” consideration in choosing a spouse. Excitement is fine, but it isn’t the ultimate goal of life.

I think your last point is why so many diverge on this topic.

The secular individualism rampant in the Western world often sees society as existing for the purpose of supporting the individual. Marry that outlook with the over focus on “self realization” and you get to the idea that society exists to allow “me to be the best me I can be”. It obliterates the social contract where society helps individuals so that they can give back to society.

We used to talk about rights and obligations as two sides of the same coin; but everything I’ve seen with “free college for everyone” implies that education is a right, but there is no obligation to society. Apparently the only obligation today is the obligation to be ourselves and love what we do.

 

[PetraG]

I think your last point is why so many diverge on this topic.

The secular individualism rampant in the Western world often sees society as existing for the purpose of supporting the individual. Marry that outlook with the over focus on “self realization” and you get to the idea that society exists to allow “me to be the best me I can be”. It obliterates the social contract where society helps individuals so that they can give back to society.

We used to talk about rights and obligations as two sides of the same coin; but everything I’ve seen with “free college for everyone” implies that education is a right, but there is no obligation to society. Apparently the only obligation today is the obligation to be ourselves and love what we do.

K-12 has been deemed the minimum education that everyone ought to be given the opportunity (and to some extent, the obligation) to obtain. A college education is always going to be a privilege that some people will be suited for and some won’t, and that changes the calculation concerning what is fair to those who don’t get societal help in getting one. (Obviously, we already subsidize public universities, and generally speaking has had a demonstrable economic benefit for state economies, but the taxpayers also knew that students and their families had substantial skin in the game, too.)

 

[Thomasbradley312]

Nothing is free. Simple as that.
Even if you go to public schools someone is paying the bill.

 

[HumbleIOughtToBe]

The people most biologically capable of breeding a large Catholic Family (20-30) are least economically capable of sustaining this family.

The Rules for Rulers

“11:49 For rulers in a democracy, the more productivity the better.
11:53 Which is why they build universities and hospitals and roads and grant freedoms,
11:58 not just out of the goodness of their hearts but because it increases citizen productiveness,
12:05 which increases treasure for the ruler and their key supporters, even when a lower percentage is taken.”

 

[Bithynian]

There used to be fees, then it was free in the 70s, then by the late 80s the fees were reintroduced (this is in Australia).

We currently operate a system called the Higher Education Contribution System (HECS): a large part of one’s tuition fees are paid for by the government, with the remainder to be contributed by the student (this can be anywhere from $4,000 to $8,000 a year). If a student is unable to pay for their contribution, a special type of loan can be sought from the gov’t whereby one repays it via your income tax when your income rises above $50,000 a year. The loan is adjusted for CPI as well as a small, nominal interest rate.

It’s an interesting system, and for all its disadvantages, I think it works quite well. It was developed by an Australian economist and he emphasised that more accessible education tends to yield significant intangible benefits for the community: happier, healthier, smarter citizens.

The $50,000 income tax threshold was highly innovative: it was agreed that one’s education should only be paid for if it accrues to one in the form of higher incomes. One line of thought for this policy is that there were many less-well-off stay-at-home mothers who were locked out of an enriching higher education, which could aid them in rearing children. (Note: there is an exception, the unpaid tuition is recouped by the gov’t from one’s estate upon death.)

 

[Theo520]

It’s an interesting system, and for all its disadvantages, I think it works quite well. It was developed by an Australian economist and he emphasised that more accessible education tends to yield significant intangible benefits for the community: happier, healthier, smarter citizens.

So it’s affordable but not free.

My only concern is free loans for low income areas. I prefer scholarship money, where the students need to show intent and apply for the money. And what if they study for years then give up on the field they studied, why should the govt carry the cost of their poor decision making.

 

[Bithynian]

My only concern is free loans for low income areas. I prefer scholarship money, where the students need to show intent and apply for the money. And what if they study for years then give up on the field they studied, why should the govt carry the cost of their poor decision making.

The loans in Australia aren’t income tested: any and all can apply for them. There is some special provision for especially low-income people (I think).

And what if they study for years then give up on the field they studied, why should the govt carry the cost of their poor decision making.

This is why Australia doesn’t generally dabble in scholarships. With the current system, all loans are - eventually - repaid in some form or another, regardless of whether the student completes the degree, gets a job in an entirely different field, or becomes a stay-at-home mother.

 

[Dan_Defender]

We currently operate a system called the Higher Education Contribution System (HECS): a large part of one’s tuition fees are paid for by the government, with the remainder to be contributed by the student (this can be anywhere from $4,000 to $8,000 a year). If a student is unable to pay for their contribution, a special type of loan can be sought from the gov’t whereby one repays it via your income tax when your income rises above $50,000 a year. The loan is adjusted for CPI as well as a small, nominal interest rate.

Interesting. That is similar to the Canadian system for higher education.

 

[Bithynian]

This is why Australia doesn’t generally dabble in scholarships.

Edit: I should clarify, we do have scholarships in Australia but they’re generally of a different nature than found in the US.

Most Australian scholarships tend to be like “prizes”: a small sum ($500-$1000) awarded to students after meritorious academic achievement. It’s more of a “thumbs up” than anything, and most students (such as myself) sat aside any “scholarship” money for textbooks.

There are some significant scholarships (>$10,000), but these are mostly for non-tuition expenses, such as accommodation which can be very, very expensive in cities such as Sydney (>$30,000 per year). These scholarships have various requirements: income testing, previous meritorious academic record, continued academic achievement (i.e. slip beneath a certain GPA and your scholarship is revoked), etc.

In any case, higher education - even without scholarships - in Australia is extremely accessible to those from less-well-off backgrounds (including myself whose parent were working class Chinese immigrants). The Australians who are well off tend to go abroad to study: Oxford, Cambridge, Yale, Harvard, etc.