Plan would eliminate tuition to UC's benefit

[Trader]

I think in the end it just will create more debt for our government and the people of California. There is no guarantee that these graduates will get decent paying jobs. To me, this is like promising people overly generous retirement benefits funded by unrealistic future returns on investments.

Besides, free college education will further the entitlement mentality of our country. Look how entitlements have all become economically unsustainable.

I agree that is a possibility. It would also make it harder for private colleges to compete against free tuition.

 

[rlg94086]

But what is the incentive for a student to perform well and graduate? If GRADUATES pay 5% of their income, what’s to prevent me from taking 3 1/2 years to earn my degree at UC, transfer to UCCS in Colorado and finish my degree only paying for a semester. I’m not a graduate of UC so I don’t owe them a dime…but have gotten a degree all the same.

Further, what’s the incentive to do well? I can blow off that statistics class and take it again next term and it didn’t cost me anything.

Excellent points, as well. It’s looking worse and worse.

 

[stinkcat_14]

Yes, it could cause the university to prioritize the colleges of business, medicine, law, and engineering, but neglect the colleges of education and liberal arts.

And the problem with this is?

 

[Trader]

And the problem with this is?

That is a really good and short question. My answer will be a lot longer and maybe not as good.

There is nothing wrong if you want a university to operate more like a business. With the current crop of university administrators, there is no chance of them doing that. Many of them think profits are immoral.

I think we could all agree we need more doctors, engineers, and competent business leaders. Lawyers? Maybe not so much. Congress is already full of them.

But, I would ask, do you really want a university to be just a really expensive trade school? I think any society, and especially a democratic society, needs a lot of ordinary citizens with broad educations. We need to know history, and philosophy (especially ethics), and literature, and science, and art. We need to go beyond questions of "can it be done?’ to “should it be done?”. What are the short and long term consequences of doing something? Those things need to be decided by more than a professional class, and our high schools are not doing a good job of providing solid general educations. A college education has become almost a minimum standard for this century.

Since I originally included colleges of education in the second group that would be de-emphasized, I say yes, leave them in that group unless they are reformed in a major way. The education professionals are a major part of our failure to provide good educations for the 21st century. Too many teachers have been trained to fill out forms and attend union meetings, but lack any depth of knowledge in the subjects they are supposed to teach. Too many teachers are trained to think that parents should take orders from them rather than consider the parents as their customers.

 

[stinkcat_14]

That is a really good and short question. My answer will be a lot longer and maybe not as good.

Actually, it is a bit of a loaded question, and one for which I am not unbiased, since I teach in a business school.

There is nothing wrong if you want a university to operate more like a business. With the current crop of university administrators, there is no chance of them doing that. Many of them think profits are immoral.

I am not quite so sure that is true of administrators, college faculty no doubt, but college administrators main job is seeking funds from donors, many of the big donors are business owners. So they kind of have this unenviable task of seeking money from wealthy business owners without seeming like a cheerleader for capitalism.

I think we could all agree we need more doctors, engineers, and competent business leaders. Lawyers? Maybe not so much. Congress is already full of them.

This is true.

But, I would ask, do you really want a university to be just a really expensive trade school? I think any society, and especially a democratic society, needs a lot of ordinary citizens with broad educations. We need to know history, and philosophy (especially ethics), and literature, and science, and art. We need to go beyond questions of "can it be done?’ to “should it be done?”. What are the short and long term consequences of doing something? Those things need to be decided by more than a professional class, and our high schools are not doing a good job of providing solid general educations. A college education has become almost a minimum standard for this century.

I think there needs to be a mix of skills that are needed in the job market, and some of these more broad general education goals. We need the job skills mainly because college is expensive and we need to make it worth the kid’s while to go there. We need broad thinking skills, because the specific job skills will be obsolete in a few years.

Since I originally included colleges of education in the second group that would be de-emphasized, I say yes, leave them in that group unless they are reformed in a major way. The education professionals are a major part of our failure to provide good educations for the 21st century. Too many teachers have been trained to fill out forms and attend union meetings, but lack any depth of knowledge in the subjects they are supposed to teach. Too many teachers are trained to think that parents should take orders from them rather than consider the parents as their customers.

I think our colleges of education are in desperate need of reform. We crank out lots of classes and degrees, particularly at the graduate level, without knowing what the practical effects of these degrees are except for giving people raises. Teachers get raises when they complete more credits, but are teachers with more credits necessarily better? It is not clear.

 

[Trader]

Actually, it is a bit of a loaded question, and one for which I am not unbiased, since I teach in a business school.

I am not quite so sure that is true of administrators, college faculty no doubt, but college administrators main job is seeking funds from donors, many of the big donors are business owners. So they kind of have this unenviable task of seeking money from wealthy business owners without seeming like a cheerleader for capitalism.

This is true.

I think there needs to be a mix of skills that are needed in the job market, and some of these more broad general education goals. We need the job skills mainly because college is expensive and we need to make it worth the kid’s while to go there. We need broad thinking skills, because the specific job skills will be obsolete in a few years.

I think our colleges of education are in desperate need of reform. We crank out lots of classes and degrees, particularly at the graduate level, without knowing what the practical effects of these degrees are except for giving people raises. Teachers get raises when they complete more credits, but are teachers with more credits necessarily better? It is not clear.

Thanks, I love it when smart people agree with me. How else would I know they are smart?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

But what is the incentive for a student to perform well and graduate?

Most students already pay for their education after graduation because 65% of graduates paid for their tuition and fees with loans. I don’t see what difference in incentive the proposed program would make.

If GRADUATES pay 5% of their income, what’s to prevent me from taking 3 1/2 years to earn my degree at UC, transfer to UCCS in Colorado and finish my degree only paying for a semester. I’m not a graduate of UC so I don’t owe them a dime…but have gotten a degree all the same.

Actually you would still owe UC. The promissory note would be no different than those you’d have to sign when taking out loans. I can’t imagine the University omitting a clause requiring payment even if you did not complete your education.

Further, what’s the incentive to do well? I can blow off that statistics class and take it again next term and it didn’t cost me anything.

That depends on how much you value a college education. Just because your tuition payments are deferred doesn’t mean that you can’t be expelled for poor academic performance.