I am not at all sure how the many, many adjuncts (approximately 75-80% of the faculty at my community college) will feel about this. They receive no benefits, are scheduled at the last minute and are paid poorly. They certainly do not receive a living wage.
Most of the adjuncts I know are primarily retail employees who fill out they work schedules with a class or two, because the retail jobs are not full-time either. It's better than Uber, I guess.
I was an adjunct for many years, after a design career that lasted 20+ years, cut off by the growth of contingent workers in that field. I have a different full time job now, but I used to teach 4 classes at three school and grossed under $30,000.
I'll promote free college when college can reasonably pay the people who teach the freshmen and sophomores. Mind you, I am totally for tenure, as I believe people with advanced degrees need to be treated with respect and allowed to do research or personal work that makes them the professionals who can teach their subjects well.
21
I received my B.S. (genetics) from U.C. Davis in 1976. Tuition was $212.50 per quarter and permitted the student to take as many units as (s)he wished. I graduated in less than 4 years, went on to grad school (genetics and plant breeding), earned my PhD and did genetics and bred barley varieties at Montana State University for 31 years. My last malting barley variety improved profitability for regional barley growers by an estimated $30 million. I think the pre-Reagon investment the taxpayers made in the UC system was an excellent one, and one that added value to the US economy. We should get back to that model.
20
My neice (in her late 30's), pampered and spoiled by her grandparents as a child, has already started and quit three different schools either because of a hard teacher, tough curriculum, or not getting along with others. This is her way of avoiding work I sincerely believe, and getting attention (very narcissistic). So my views are different than most of you as too many starters and quitters would abuse the system as she does. She hasn't paid off most of her debt and doesn't seem to care as she is never gainfully employed anyway.
9
You often hear that x number of jobs in the future will require a college degree. Unless you're talking about the medical profession or any other for which the government requires a college degree, that would be racist.
The problem is that our culture is getting even more anti-intellectual every year.
11
Forget these "liberal fantasies"
All of life's problems can be solved by giving the rich another tax cut, an unquestioned fealty to the military industrial complex (and its costs, support the troops!) and a healthy dose of Jesus (but only evangelical of course)
11
Let's make everything worth working for free. Then what?
3
Tell that Harvard professor to teach without receiving any compensation - teach for free and see how that works out for you.
5
Don't be ridiculous. This will enable even more people totally inappropriate and ill-suited for college educations to take a path that leads nowhere for them; but, at the same time, leaving the tax-payer holding even more of a "bag."
8
College is not Ivy Walls, Football, Fraternities and Sororities. It is, at its base, attendance and adherence to a high level educational curriculum.
We have made an attempt to provide college to the masses with Jr. College or Community College but they have grown quickly from their roots to something resembling a Jr. University with a course catalog running to hundreds of pages.
There is an easy and affordable solution. Each of our towns has a high school nearby. It is currently equipped with classrooms, laboratories, a library and there are a local cadre of trained, qualified teachers that are currently underpaid.
If a basic college level curriculum could be agreed upon, a national system of truly local colleges could be quickly brought on line that would educate
high school graduates that inexpensively live at home. The teachers would be qualified local teachers, moonlighting from their day job. The local school district could offer the facilities at no or little cost as it is for their taxpayers.
Is this “night school?” Yes, but nationally recognized, college level night school with a course credit that is transferable to at least the state college level, offered at a cost that would permit mass participation. It is a way to truly advance the education level of the masses and it can easily be done in stages with a new course level added each year. This approach should not be ignored.
10
@ronbj99
Such programs as you describe already exist in many states. It is called "Dual Enrollment". We have local community colleges teach high school students in real college level courses while they are in high school. Some classes are taught at the college, some at the high school and some online. These programs cost the taxpayers very little and save the students and parents tens of thousands. Unfortunately, not enough students take advantage of these programs. Part of the problem is that local high school teachers and bureaucrats feel threatened by dual enrollment. Dual enrollment is superior to Advanced Placement courses and many high school teachers try to discourage students away from dual enrollment.
4
We should start with free primary education for 3 to 5 year olds, then reduce if not eliminate the cost of college. These benefits should be available to everyone, just as Medicare is, so that everyone will be willing to pay the taxes that will be necessary to pay for them.
7
I teach at a Community College and have serious questions about free college tuition. In my experience, the students who don't pay for school have a strong tendency to drop a class when it gets to be more challenging than they want. On the other hand, the students who are paying their way, usually because they are not eligible for grants, work much harder and stick it out to the end of the semester.
So, anecdotally, free things are less valued than those we pay for and therefore have an investment in.
17
Just pay for it already, like the public good it is. Loan subsidies just allow private institutions to jack up prices even further in response to increased ability to pay. Even public institutions spend too much money on landscaping and marketing campaigns meant to attract students rather than teach them.
7
I work at a state institution, UCLA. It’s VERY hard to get accepted here — really, to any UC school — which brings to mind two questions: does the promise of free tuition mean there’s a state school for everyone? And how would the federal government account for the drastic, immediate school expansion needed to accommodate these students? State schools are giant bureaucracies and can’t institute change quickly at all.
Perhaps we should focus on the whole enchilada of education, not just this pathway.
7
People don't want free college per se, they want jobs with good wages and view college as the means of obtaining them. Rather than pretending college is free, we should address the real problem as to why accessible jobs are no longer paying the wages they did a few decades ago. Not everyone needs to go to college, and those who don't shouldn't be subsidizing it for those who do.
6
@Joe Agreed! Many jobs train graduates to do things THEIR WAY! They may utilize some basics but in the end it's like speaking Latin after having four years of it. Gets no real use in either everyday life or the job situation.
Here's an important, somewhat "inconvenient" question for advocates of free college tuition, no matter how many billions it might cost or how much benefit it would arguably provide.
Should our first priority for any new tranche of funds for public education be focused on "extending the educational entitlement" -- that is, making it free for everyone, regardless of income -- to grades 13-16?
Or, shouldn't we instead focus first on fully paid for, high quality pre-school programs for the nation's 3, 4, and 5 year olds?
Given the wealth of data on the subject, free and universal early childhood education would benefit far more people, and do far more to address the economic and racial disparities in American life. (That's not to mention the far broader impact on working parents, especially single ones).
Many progressives (including most leading presidential candidates) certainly support more funding -- direct, and via tax credits -- for child care programs, and that's certainly important, too. But the more specific question here is, "For whom should free and universal public education be extended first -- and why?" Deciding to first fully pay for the educations of 18-22 year olds, before doing so for their far younger siblings, isn't just a failure of imagination. It's yet another example of well-meaning politicians getting swept up in chasing a particular "bright shiny object" that's far less valuable than what lies right in front of us.
14
I went to UC Davis and graduated in 1968. I paid $270 a year in tuition that year. Adjusting for inflation that would mean that I was paying about $1,700 a year in 2018 dollars. Today UC students pay over $13,000 in tuition and fees. Why? Because the State of California's contribution to the UC system has declined from about 90% back then to about 12% today. So the state has put the burden onto the backs of the students and their families. Isn't it about time we Make Education Great Again and go back to funding public education instead of making students become debt slaves?
15
@mr3 Most of the problem is, as you say, reduced state spending on higher education. A big part of it is an entirely different structural model: in 1968 university administrations involved a few deans and assistant deans, generally drawn from the faculty; now there is an enormous layer of professional administrators, with very large salaries. And then there are expenses nobody could have foreseen in 1968; I recall being a professor in the 1990s when humanities and arts departments were asked to pay for the infrastructure for wired internet involvement (lagging behind the scientists in this activity); it was a huge burden.
4
Since the purpose of education is to fill the positions businesses need to accomplish their operations shouldn't business pay to educate their employees. If so, maybe schools both trade and university types, be supported by business (and government since they need employees also).
Instead of people or parents paying for the education, businesses and government would foot the bill and provide 5 (?) years of employment to the student to get the return on investment. Thus, schools would be created by joint ventures for specific professions with the graduates working for the companies and government that supported the schools.
The prospective student would take a test to determine what profession would be a best fit for their interests.
The educational system doesn't have to conform to the current system to make things work for both business and people.
1
I believe that colleges and Universities should be made to co sign student loans. Let them put their money up against a quality AND marketable degree. If a student chooses to get a degree in a field that would average $40k year if they can find a job then let the school assume the responsibility to cover a default.
2
An idea worth a very serious look. However, the challenge will not be related to costs but to talent, the perception of where one can receive a quality education and the issue of fairness.
College is is not for everyone. Further, we will really need to look at how society hypes the "elite" schools. In reality, my education at the University of New Mexico was as good as any "elite" school one. But the perception was different.
Finally, if all are receiving free tuition, why should one fret that their more wealthy neighbor is also a beneficiary of the program?
4
Why not create a 2- or 3-year mandatory national service program for all high school finishers or drop-outs, both young men & young women, with the only "out" being voluntary military service or severe mental or physical disability? College tuition, under the GI Bill or something like it for public service, could help those who complete the mandate.
Such a public service/college tuition program could 1) serve our undisputed need for infrastructure repair/renewal; 2) help teenagers, incl. pacifists who reject military service & those whose health might preclude military service, develop adult skills & a resume through paid performance; 3) apply to all, helping low-income youth earn enough for college; and 4) by allowing those of different backgrounds to live, learn, & work together, reduce current lifelong income inequities & alienation among different economic/ethnic/racial classes.
Political & wealthy people's objections will abound - I assume that's why I've not seen such proposals from experts. Nonetheless, national service works in a few other countries - I wish we could see our way clear to improving US economic outcomes, employment, and physical infrastructure needs. As Paul Wellstone said, "We all do better when we all do better."
6
A simple solution is always easy to propose, but like most things, the current cost of college is complicated. First, state schools have had funding cut by state legislatures for years, which means both budget cuts and shifting the cost and charging higher tuition. Budget cuts have led reducing both staff and faculty positions, few resources for libraries, councilors, etc. The costs to the universities have gone up. This is not an exhaustive list, but prices have risen tremendously for things like insurance, furniture, heating and cooling, and library resources.
For instance, library resources, especially academic journals, have risen in price WAY above inflation rates over the last several decades, sometimes as high as 35-40%. Why? Well, that complicated as well. The simple answer is that publishers are making huge profits because they have a monopoly. The increased cost means when even if we have a good year and our budget is flat, we have to cut resources.
Yes, there are issues on campuses that must be addressed, but they vary from college to college. A one size fits all solution would exacerbate the problem.
I would prefer to see my state taxes rise a little so that more students can attend college without assuming massive debt. I would like to see a move to Open Access publication. I would like to see college be an opportunity to learn to become lifetime learners and critical thinkers, as well as finding meaning full work.
3
Most people at 18 aren't ready for college, and consequently there are too many dropouts. Many students require remedial classes before they can proceed with freshman level work. One idea would be to subsidize extending our normal four year high school program to five or even six years. Students could divide according to interests and abilities. Perhaps some would thrive in a technical program instead of academic. Everyone doesn't need to go to college, but everyone needs to be educated with skills to survive in a modern economy. A longer high school program might be a better use of the money.
4
You make a very good point. Education is organized more for the benefit of parents than children. It would be better to start all education later in life when brains are more developed. So start first grade at age 9 rather than 6. Then college would start at 21 instead of 18. Also, part of development is adequate sleep. So start schools at 9 am instead of 8 or even 7:30 in some places. In other words, set up education for the maximum benefit of the kids, not the grownups.
4
@Daphne In addition to not being ready academically, I suspect that most students would benefit from a few years "out in the real world" before college to provide context to what they're learning.
3
It's a good idea, but the time should perhaps be limited to about a year. One tends to forget how to learn in a classroom. I saw that with older vets in college.
My grandfather attended the University of Kansas 110 years ago, and was charged $10 per semester. When I graduated from high school in 1964, most state universities charged very little for their state citizen high school graduates to attend, including the best public universities in states like California and Virginia. Only Ivy League and other private schools charged a significant amount of money to attend. You want to know how to make higher education easily affordable for a kid to pay for with income from a part time job? Just do some research and find out how it was done right here in the US until the Great Suppression of the middle class began in 1980.
3
There seems to be a part of the math that is missing here and that involves the amount of money public universities collect from out of state students. University of Michigan now has more students who are from out of state than in state. At a gross cost level they are paying 7 times what in state students are paying. Some are clearly getting aid of some sort. But the math of what it costs the universities to currently operate has to include this in factoring the income stream. Then you also have to consider if by having free tuition does it change how many students attend. Will the schools be able to stay at current attendance numbers? If it then has to increase (surely no one thinks if such a program were put in place that the government would let the administrations decide how many students would be admitted) has the cost of supporting the increase in student numbers been considered? My guess is no.
1
There was a time, before Reagan began the Republican destruction of FDR's New Deal and other rational policies (e. g., the Land Grant legislation of 1862) when Americans believe that funding higher education and associated scientific research was worth doing. And that's when one could attend a state college or University at what were very modest fees. And live in very modest dormitories. Since Reagan America's investment in higher education has been drastically cut and colleges and Universities continue to be attacked and harassed by Reputlicans.
4
This is just silly.
Mr. Deming asserts that "at least some — and perhaps all — of the cost of universal tuition-free public higher education could be defrayed by redeploying money that the government is already spending" -- which he estimates to be $91 billion per year. Perhaps.
What he does not acknowledge is that the consequence would be no need-based federal scholarship or loan assistance at all for students attending private colleges or universities.
Who would attend the free public universities? The highest-credentialed applicants, mostly upper middle class. Who would attend private colleges and universities? Children of families who could afford to pay the tuition without federal assistance. Where would children trying to break out of America's cycle of poverty go? Nowhere.
Need-based federal aid for higher education is one of the greatest upward-mobility programs in America today. Mr. Deming proposes that we eliminate it and redeploy those moneys to other purposes.
The likely effect: greater social stratification and less money spent on higher education overall. Before we all jump on the bandwagon, let's think this through.
1
Good column and his numbers indicate that the much of the $79 billion required for free tuition at public colleges could come from shifting existing tax credits and current VA and Pell grants. I like his idea of linking federal aid to required state government aid to public colleges.
Still the major cost today at public colleges is not tuition ($8,700) but room and board, books, and fees (generally over $16,000 a year).
Also the major problem for students facing college debt is for those students who fail to graduate but incur debt. Only about 50% or so entering students graduate and for some colleges it is well below 30%.
As a requirement of federal aid, all colleges should insure that at least 50% of their students graduate. Then after another few years, 75% or 80% of entering students graduate. Colleges should provide more effective help to getting students to get a degree within 5 years of entering. They should also be more selective and only admit students capable of passing courses.
Colleges are a big part of the problem about rising costs and for the abysmal low rate of graduation.
1
@john
I generally agree with everything you say, but this statement gives me pause :"They should also be more selective and only admit students capable of passing courses." Just how do you propose that this be done? High school performance, and even performance on SAT and ACT are not always good measures. There is much more to successful school performance than this. The best preparation for many people for college is to simply get out into the real world after high school and experience life so that they grow up to the point where they have the maturity to successfully attend college. And hopefully they will not have children during this time, because that is another deterrent to attending college. I could go on, but hopefully you perceive my point.
Actually, I would suggest that a better way of assuring future success in college than prior academic performance would be to require some sort of government service before becoming eligible for free tuition. Expand the G.I. Bill to include other types of government service. This will provide the maturity and real-life experience that I believe is important, not to mention a lesson in citizenship that many college students seemingly never understand.
@Brent--very good points and I am not sure how specifically colleges can select students who would more likely graduate. A good HS GPA is the best measure often, but maybe in lieu of that some other measure of grit, determination, and good writing and reading skills would be good. College kids drop out often not just because of poor grades, but loneliness, poor study habits, drinking and drugs, money problems. Some colleges already have systems to lower drop out rates through intensive mentoring, small grants for low income kids. Leave it up to the colleges to lower their drop out rates or face losing federal aid. I like the idea of community service or work before college too. Good colleges today already have graduation rate of 75% or higher. Most college graduates with modest college loan amounts can pay those off; it is the drop outs stuck with debt who are the real problem.
Great idea, take GI Bill money from the VA and give it to some of the Identity Party who have never done anything for their country. We already have free education for convicts.
Thank you this logical, sensible column about how we could pay for college, with safeguards built in, that - with some rearrangement- would cost less than what we as taxpayers are funding now. It might be best to include money for trades in the package of reform, acknowledging that not every student would be college bound but should also be given an opportunity to get a head start in his/her career.
It’s nice to see the “ free stuff” argument debunked as it has been here.
2
@Ellen Problem is that the article does not cover all the cost factors and revenue streams that would have to be accounted for. No math on the out of state tuition revenue stream. No math on the likely requirement to admit more students which means having the infrastructure and employee base to deal with that. Are there even enough competent teachers for the increased load. The math is flawed.
1
This is piece is quite informative. The article is suggesting a restructuring of financial aid for students. But I suggest a complete restructuring of education. And we are putting the cart before the horse by focusing on college.
The education of a human in America starts at 3 or 4 months - when a kid goes to day care (if the parents can afford it). Over the next 3 years genius is cultivated and criminal minds are created by a lame underpaid hodge podge day care system. Start by giving every child SCHOOL - not baby sitting. Early year educators should make as much money as college professors. This is when people are FORMED.
And then look around the world for the education systems that blend providing general knowledge and a pathway to work for every kid. When an American kid finishes his/her education she should be employed already - paid internships that help determine if he is on the right path. Maybe it would be college, maybe it would be a trade.
We approach this subject just like we do so many others - with no effort or interest in learning how well other countries apply different systems to get great results. Isn't it ironic that in our capitalist country companies steal and repurpose good ideas from each other all day long. Why don't we apply this to education?
Our current approach to grooming kids for adult success is unfocused and handicaps all but the affluent from birth forward.
10
Does that 37% number (percent of students going to college) really need to go up? Or has college become a middle class signaling mechanism that less than 37% actually need to have a successful career? Perhaps investing more in non-college trades and making high school students actually educated would be a better investment. This is a decent article assuming its hidden premises are correct but a better article would tackle those premises first. Certainly anecdotes about what level of education the jobs many graduates end up doing actually require (a solid high school education plus some maturity and on the job training) make one wonder about those premises. How about collecting hard data before shuffling$100 billion around.
4
I would recommend two things. One adopt the system Norway uses for young students. No tests until they are 12 years old.
Spend the money that goes into testing and preparing the t4ests and foolishly preparing the students for the test and devote that money and time to teachers working with each other and research educators to perfect teaching students and making learning fun.
As far as I know the four wealthiest private universities are so well funded that any student getting in, money is Never the Problem.
Having a better educated population will benefit the country that is moving from a manufacturing base to a technology and information base. In the last 50 years, we have been importing and keeping foreign brains, this is why there are so many Asians and Indians in the US now, but we are doing two things.
We are making it harder for these highly educated people to remain and as salaries rise in China and India those salaries there are buying more at 30-40,000 USD than 150,000 USD buys in California.
So no tests and work on teachers working together to educate our young and make university free. At $100 Billion it would be an overall bargain.
Time to shrink the military, use strategic missile and bombing and only go into places where the World, (Nato) votes to go and we are smaller than usual.
I get more re-ordering from Chrysler's automobiles and Dow's hospital supplies than I ever will from Tanks and Napalm any day.
5
@TheBackman Yes, there never seems to be any thought about limits when it comes to our military. For instance, our military adventures in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Pakistan have cost a whopping $5,6 trillion. With interest payments that's $7.9 trillion, according to the Costs of War project, based at Brown University’s Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. And now Trump and crew are vigorously agitating for a shootout with Iran. Can you imagine the cost of that?
4
I went to school in America. On a full merit scholarship. I finished college in 2 1/2 years while working at the cafeteria to cover living expenses. Then did my MBA in 1 year. Having then lived in Europe and other countries where education is tuition free, I see the advantage of that. There is no better investment for a country than education (I work in Finance). Yes, I it makes sense to provide tuition free education at public universities.
My impression is that in America the ones who suffer the most is actually the Middle Class. They don't qualify for financial aid, and thus parents have to get second mortgages or kids get in tremendous amounts of debt.
13
You can give free tuition once you pay back my tuition expenses.
7
@Rich Skalski
So I assume you will also gladly refuse any future new benefits that apply to you until everyone else gets theirs first.
I just hope for your sake that if future generations or family ever need to take care of you they won’t be as selfish as you. Perhaps they will first check in their “ledger” what you have done for them in the past so they can decide if it’s morally appropriate to do the right thing. But maybe you will get lucky and they actually will recognize that living in a community means striving for the right thing even if it is not personally advantageous.
I went to a tuition free college in Europe. The entry exams were very difficult, but offered all students a clean slate (there was no need to present the high school GPA). The top 3 percent received a grant that amounted to 80 percent of a minimum salary. Nobody dropped out, just because it was free. There were no luxuries, but I preferred that than entering life saddled with debt. Education was excellent. Years later I met an NYU professor who taught one of the disciplines I studies and he knew less than I knew as a mere graduate. I was surprised!
25
First of all, tuition is not the main expense of going to college. Living expenses are, especially since it is difficult to hold down a full time job while taking 15-18 hrs of classes each semester. So living expenses would have to be taken care of for there to truly be an equal opportunity to attend college.
Second, the current college campus is a throwback to the 19th c. when college was a playboy activity for the rich. We don't need those expensive campuses, with their gyms and swimming pools and playing fields and sports teams and clubs and huge classroom buildings and mostly useless or redundant administrators. Most administration work can be done online with one center for the whole state. Faculty committees can do the on-campus academic administration work. Same with libraries; books can be accessed online from a single facility and delivered to different universities daily.
Faculty teaching loads can be doubled easily, still leaving enough time for research.
Classes can be taught partly online; and otherwise in K-12 buildings after 3:00 and at night. Ditch the campus buildings and parking lots. The money saved can be spent to support living expenses for the needy.
4
@William Murdick Let me say as a college professor of almost 30 years, faculty already do much of what you suggest. One of the most demanding parts of my job is the administrative committee work. Currently my personal committee responsibilities include new curriculum development, assessments to maintain accreditation, academic fairness, faculty development, inclusion and diversity programming, planning collaborative academic lectures/events across campus. The nine hours of teaching/week (3 courses) each semester may seem small but if it were "easily doubled," I would be overseeing about 300 students. Beyond the hours in class there are many related activities which keep the content updated, include individual student help, provide assessment of the students. Professors also pursue research and scholarship and mentor students which is beyond the hours in the classroom. I am not an exception, this is typical. These are the invisible parts of a university faculty member's job. The administrative responsibilities have been increasingly shifted to faculty. Finally, education online has its place, but there something is missed in the communication and interpersonal skills that should be being developed in college. Being on campus for not only class interactions but also extracurruicular and co-curricular activities develops the whole person: seminars, events, demonstrations, etc. enrich a student's experience of the world. College is a time for this.
14
@William Murdick while I agree that the cost of college can be drastically reduced, as a collet professor I think you have no idea about the academic of university study. Most of us have very heavy teaching loads and we do our research during vacations and weekends. Not all books are digitalised and libraries are still important as are campuses as they provide forums for exchange. Most recent studies show that e-learning although cheap is in no way comparable to classroom experience. Europe is able to offer excellent higher education for free or at a fraction of the cost, the only thing we don't have are the fancy sports teams and gyms :)
10
@William Murdick
I’m taking the idea of free college to mean free tuition. The plan would be to attend a local 2 or 4 year college & then plan to transfer to a flagship university.
Obviously, some students would have to work to provide additional living expenses but there will never be an acceptable way for the taxpayers to cover those expenses.
My biggest concern would be that our K-12 systems prepare our students to succeed in these options. The number of college students who require remedial assistance in reading & math is astounding & leads to the high dropout rate.
3
The USA spends $700 billion a year on its military. That amount is more than the next 11 countries' spending combined! The US could potentially reduce 10% of its military budget and redirect it to free college education for everyone. A populace where everyone is college-educated will make such economic, scientific and artistic contributions that the USA will be 50 times stronger than what it could be if it simply spent that money on the military.
22
Smolly Hokes! How elitist can you be?
Some folks don't wish to go to college, they're more comfortable being a plumber or painter, an electrician, a truck driver, a handyman, or even mowing a lawn. Are these occupations inherently less important or valuable than one's "requiring" a college education? Phaleeze!
The author suggests there may be greater needs for scare resources; perhaps a far more interesting topic than doing the math and seeing how the numbers roll in.
Maybe, just maybe we should let the markets decide...
And maybe, just maybe, federal resources would be better spent on elementary and secondary education, so that by the time the teen is chronologically ready to enroll, he/she will also be intellectually ready to meet the challenge that college provides. So much so that yes, schools will be in bidding wars, just like for prime athletes.
Wouldn't that be something...
All too often we neglect the big picture, the big questions, only to focus in on a specific program, which of necessity, have built in assumptions. And, with the right assumptions, one can prove just about anything!
4
@Charles Mason
I totally agree. The trades all need free tuition as well. Invest in our kids, all of our kids. And at all points in their education. This particular article is about college, but most stuff of this ilk I read includes the trades as well. As it should.
9
The un United States has a 400 billion dollar order for 2,200 F-35 fighter jets. That’s 160 million per plane. We can start there.
9
Interesting, coming from Havard-- a private university.
What would be the effect of free public tuition on application numbers? Would they increase to such levels that competitive public schools become too exclusive? Would the private schools become less competitive? Would they try to compete with lower tuition? I wonder.
The numbers are interesting too. 79 billion, that would be about 564$ for each of the 140 million tax payers. If you only taxed the upper 50%, it would be 1128$. Or imagine a progressive college tax-- those in the top 10% of filers Pau 1000$-2000$ a year, the rest pay 100 or less.
6
Many people do not want to or need to go to college.
Why should they be required to pay for the tuition of others?
Almost 40% of us don't go to college.
What about all of these people?
Pete Buttigieg is the only one to have made a point of this.
College is not for everyone. Nor should it be.
9
@simon sez
"Free" college is not free. It is hours that could be spent earning money or learning a trade. Students not taking college seriously because it is both "free" and, for them, not a path to wealth would make it a worse experience for everyone.
People should not graduate with so much debt that they will be tempted to resort to crime to pay it off. Reducing overhead, administration and tertiary expenses might keep both the costs and the temptation to turn to crime in check.
One feature of associating college with money is that it could be a rational choice not to attend even for a reasonably smart person. That is a much tougher case to make for most people if college had no tuition. If free college allows everyone attends who could possibly attend, the result might be an even more stratified society than we already have.
A lot of proposals that seem to help vulnerable people actually make things worse for people who are even more vulnerable than the beneficiaries of the policy. This is a fine example.
5
Because when you need a doctor you’ll be happy he went to college, that’s why.
There are additional benefits here. I graduated with $150,000+ in student debt, and still make $1000 monthly payments on my student loans (>50% of which is interest).
With this debt, I would almost certainly be using this money for household goods, entertainment, etc. Student loans are shackling a generation of consumers, and with it, holding back the economy for the benefit of the lenders and the colleges.
5
we don't want a generation of consumers
@Honeybee
And here comes the sanctimonious red stater to admonish the blue stater over their life choices.
It must be really nice to live in Texas with the low property taxes (subsidized by blue states BTW).
Also, he never asked you to pick up the tab on his debt.
Maybe employers should look themselves in the mirror for breaking the social contract.
This man obviously took a chance on himself and his potential earning power by taking on debt, with the hope that an advanced degree would lead to a better life. God forbid someone try to better themselves.
The larger point is why in the last 50 years these costs have exploded to the point that even working and attending school full time is still going to leave you in debt.
But I know the solution: another trillion dollar tax cuts for the "job creators" and an insane military budget. That'll solve everything!!!
"Offering free college to anyone who wants it" is such a sham. Implying suddenly ALL Americans will get a college education!
1/3 of Americans have a college education. Why?
Not because only 1/3 can pay for it.
Because about 1/3 are educationally and intellectually ready for it.
Because about 1/3 of the jobs available require it.
Look at Europe - where many countries are flooded with young college-educated people who can find work in their specialties.
If we want to help most Americans then we should invest in good training for all types of skilled jobs.
And invest in infrastructure repair and modernization - complex construction projects require a wide range of skilled workers - college and technical school graduates.
8
For mainstream economists, govt force guided by transcendental math and/or a transcendental society, not mans independent mind protected by individual rights, creates material wealth.
I went to a tuition free University in Europe.
The flip side was that - having no monetary incentive to retain students - it had comprehensive exam so difficult that 2/3 of my class disappeared. For example, 2 years of math - required for all students - was followed by a two day, 4 hours each written exam that covered every , that is every, subject taught in four terms of mathematics. With no time to spar
Few US parents would stand for that
6
Or else, work for China. China is tumbling down the industrial highway at breakneck speed by educating many more people than the combined totals of all other nations.
So you believe the Chinese when they say they're giving the Uighurs a free re-education.
We have a tendency to keep doing the same thing even though changing times and a lack of progress indicate a need for new methodologies.
A college degree may be correlated with a higher salary, but is it the result of the knowledge gained or the 'pretty' resume presented at the job interview?
First, we need to fix the failures in the K-12 school system. Revamp the course curriculum to match today's needs and fix voids. Time-monitored online course work continues at home in areas of weakness.
Then, how about an alternative college degree called the "Accelerated Smart Skills & Knowledge In Comprehensive (K)ourses"?
Create an algorithm to determine the college courses deemed 'valuable' by college grads and correlate it with salary levels to determine which courses led to 'middle class'. Then provide these courses online for free along with electives in areas of interest. After completion of this coursework, graduates get an "ASSKICK" degree....
1
Silly and useless.
2
The simplest way to make colleges tuition free is to require each student when she/he enrolls to contractually commit to pay a given percentage of their income each year until she/he retires. A requirement to pay a few per cent of each year's income would create an enormous amount of income to the college. I recall then Yale President Kingman Brewster proposing this in the 1960's
4
Students should be told up front that their debt will have to be paid back by giving a certain percentage of their income towards it.
Especially since the college industry says a college degree is worth $1000000
There is a lot of talk about “helping poor people”—but the ethics of a society call for something different—free tuition (rather than need based aid) for everyone is about removing stigmas to “getting help” as much as increasing enrollment. Don’t underestimate the economic value of treating “poor” people and rich people with the same level of respect. But also keep in mind it’s a basic value—and one that we should aspire to.
5
Comments seem to be pitting technical/vocational programs against four-year college degrees as if we must choose. But we spend $750 billion a year on a bloated military budget, and we just gave a trillion dollars of tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans and strangely we are engaged in this grotesque debate about what choice to make that would benefit tens of millions of Americans. Come on, people, these are the debates the parasites leeching off of your labor want you to have.
10
@CraiginKC: Bravo! for a set of fine points that you make!
2
@CraiginKC >we just gave a trillion dollars of tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans
Your Leftist evasion of individual rights, including property rights, is noted. Conservatives, also, are listening.
This is an absurd article, written by guess who? - an academic arguing that "tuition-free college could cost less than you think."
When the GI bill allowed millions of veterans to receive college educations after WWII, the colleges were glad to participate, without jacking up tuition since Uncle Sam was footing much of the bill.
That mentality among college administrators is long gone. If free tuition becomes a reality, you can bet colleges will jack up tuition because, guess what? - Uncle will foot the bill again.
5
@pinewood
Is it just me, or does this make no sense at all?
"If free tuition becomes a reality, you can bet colleges will jack up tuition ..."
Huh?
3
Why is Harvard’s endowment $39B?
4
If you trim the administrative fat, you free up a lot of cash in the university system.
9
Free tution was tried in California in 1970s. Univ sysstem got loaded with protestors whose main intention was to disrupt the system and not get an education. When Ronnie became the governor he quickly dismantled the free tution systemand universities became a place of eduation ...
3
@Purlin22
You might want to think back to that statistics class, where it was explained that correlation is not equal to causation. Also, let's remember the mass protests at Berkeley in '68 which were, as intended, highly disruptive. Do you chalk those up to free tuition?
2
So wrong. The graduates of the nine campuses of the University of California who studied there in the 60s and 70s created trillions in wealth and helped make California the world leader that it is in business, technology, and culture.
4
UC alum did not make that. The government did. Their fortunes were made on the backs of cheap immigrant labor. And mega corporations and the rich got all the tax breaks.
There is so much erroneous information in some of these comments that I need to respond. These are not give-aways nor “socialism” as some here claim but good old-fashioned capitalism based on the benefits of long-term investments. I went to City College of New York (CCNY) 1951-1955 graduating with a B.S. I had no other college choices, as I had grown up relatively poor in the South-East Bronx. My father, born in Brooklyn in 1903, lost both his father and grandfather in 1915. So, he had to quit school at 12 years of age to go to work to help support his mother. (In those days there were no commie-like socialist programs such as Social Security and Survivor Benefits that some of the people here love to hate. Nothing! People were on their own. I graduated, went to graduate schools by working my way through to a Ph.D. and and ended up as a Medical School Professor. Some of my friends had similar experiences. We ended up paying far more back into the “system” with the additional Federal and local taxes we paid compared to people who did not go to college. The system is pure capitalism – not the socialism that scares people on this site. There needs to be 2 requirements: 1) an entry exam to demonstrate the ability to do college work and 2) a means test to establish that the applicant is unable to pay tuition. Of course, it is easier to deal with this if there is a local community college that the student can commute to and avoid paying extra for housing and food.
9
Bravo!
Bravo!
2
How do you know what I think?
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
$79-80 billion is about what taxpayer send per year to the northern triangle 3rd world nations to the south. Use that and benefit American kids.
3
I did not commit to going to college at all until I found out I had received a Pell grant, even though I had a great academic record. Not going to college would have been a mistake. My college education has given me everything and that Pell grant provided a needed push.
Some form of tuition free college is a worthy goal but we have to start by shutting down colleges that are scams and penalizing colleges that are driving students into deep debt with no way out. The Trump administration has stood in the way of these kinds of reforms and it is wrong.
10
@JP >we have to start by shutting down colleges that are scams
Harvard, Yale... Oh, you mean _financial_ scams. I thought you meant intellectual scams. Never mind.
1
Telling working-class and poor teens /young adults to spend time and energy getting a free degree that will not result in the ability to earn a living wage is worse than irresponsible.
It is unkind.
Middle-class and wealthy children have significant advantages that go far beyond cash. They have a circle of support, both financial and social, and likely many elders that can help them navigate choosing a major and finding a job.
I know people who have used Pell grants to obtain degrees that made no difference in the trajectory of their economic lives. They came out older and with less work experience than their working peers.
The wealthy have always been able to study what they wished without worrying about making a living. But they have a soft place to land after getting a degree in underwater basketweaving.
Vocational training has a place in our society. My plumber charges $100 to walk through my front door. And I respect and value him as much as my CPA. When my pipes fail, maybe more.
5
@Cathy
You do not know anything abut this subject.
Your prejudices are not elements of thinking, neither your narrow "experience" seeing no difference in poor people that obtained college degrees.
The young people that attended the university with me, the majority poor, are doing excellent. In Mexico state and federal universities are practically free; that produced (UNAM) about four presidents.
Mu colleagues are doing fine all of them, and I have amassed a little fortune as a nest egg: a completely paid up home of $ 300,000, two houses that I am renting, land, another home in Mexico, and financial investments above half a million dollars: I came to this country with only $ 400.00...
So, don't tell me that free college does not work. My parents had no farther than secondary education. My brothers and I were the first in our family to have a university degree.
And I paid for my private education in the U. S.: MBA and then a Ph. D. in business.
2
@Dr. Ricardo Garres Valdez
Apparently you can't read. I believe I stated that degrees which don't result in the ability to earn a living wage are a problem.
It was in the first sentence. Maybe you missed that in your indignance and speed to craft a scathing response .
I come from a family in which the whole family pulled together to put younger people through school with some never completing h.s.. You do not have to tell me about what that can do. So much for your assumptions.
1
If this is an economic argument then please tell me what will happen when supply (of seats in classrooms) is static but demand (tuition is paid by the government) grows? I think we would need to spend billions just to increase capacity. And certifying many more professors will take years.
If we really want 16 years of public education let's fix the 12 we have now then grow organically.
3
@Mark
I know a lot of adjuncts that would love to be professors.
4
I was once told the best investment I could make was my education. They were right. I'm now helping my nephew go to college, after just one class I see a difference in how his brain works. He has discovered punctuation! He is more confident when talking to people. Even if he doesn't graduate, I know he will be much better off on account of his education.
9
Can you explain exactly how the $91 billion already going towards college subsidies can be shifted into..... college tuition subsidies? Is that really how the math works?
1
A hundred years ago, or maybe 150 years ago, a high school education - 12 grades - was out of reach for many. Thank goodness, leaders of those times (unlike some contemporary "leaders") understood that making a high school education free and accessible would lead to greater prosperity for society as a whole. Making college economically accessible would have the same benefit for us all now.
This is not to say that everybody should attend college; there would still need to be academic standards, and those who couldn't demonstrate the ability to do the work certainly shouldn't waste their own time or society's resources sitting in lecture halls. High school students who would benefit more from vocational training ought to be encouraged to go in that direction. (Hey, I'll bet some people said exactly the same thing about 9th-12th grade, back when 8th grade was considered to be enough schooling for most!)
4
One potential problem with free colleges is the lack of financial incentive to stay in. Having no money in the game could exacerbat the dropout rate especially in the first and second year of college. Perhaps the first two years could be offered at a reduced tuition rate and the next two would be tutition free. For two-year colleges, first-year students would pay and second-year students would attend for free.
3
This article interested me the most out of all the other ones because college is something big for all of us and finding a way for college to be free or more affordable is amazing for us future students. just the thought of going to college for free or for a more affordable payment is amazing because there are students who want to go to college but they are either scared of going into debt or they don't have enough money to even go. I feel like right now going to college is basically getting into debt and its hard to see a better future with that in mind so know that there are ideas of making college more affordable gives us students hope in a better life. In all this good i do believe that free college can be bad as said in the article so i believe that it should more affordable then free.
2
The US has 11 active aircraft carriers and 4 more on order. Each one costs $1.4 billion to operate every year. The entire rest of the world outside of a handful of countries have gotten by just fine without any aircraft carriers at all.
An F-22 fighter jet costs $125 million apiece. Yet our F-15s and F-16s already allow us to comfortably match against any air force in the world.
The money for free tuition is, in fact, extremely easy to find. $79 billion/year is, in the larger picture, very cheap. The real question is what the nation's priorities are.
11
Public investment in higher education results in better educated people who can earn a lot more money and contribute a lot more money to the public over their lives. The higher paid people can afford to acquire more assets as well as to pay more taxes. More college educated people enables businesses to hire workers qualified to perform much more highly skilled tasks and to offer more lucrative products and services. It also offers lower income tax payers the chance for they or their children to gain the higher skills and knowledge which would enable them to improve their circumstances.
8
@Casual Observer Abolish all public education! Govt-enforced ideas is as destructive as govt-enforced faith.
1
The problem with your suggestions is that they are not politically correct.
Political correctness REQUIRES that programs be race-conscious, and wealth oncscious. That is, the programs MUST actually harm the wealthier families, and specifically benefit those of the chosen race (black).
The Left will not accept any program that is truly fair.
2
@Doug McDonald, Wow, do you really see 'the left' like this? Way off the mark.
1
@Doug McDonald, Your racial bias shows. Cite your data for this. There is a good chance that minority students who do this will earn more money and pay more taxes instead of the possibility of more jail and more welfare costs. This is bad?
3
Another idea is to have those who do graduate with free tuition pay a certain percentage of their income above a threshold back to the government for some limited period of time after graduation (perhaps 10 years) in addition to normally owed income taxes.
5
Of course institutions will promote free tuition. They are self serving to promote and receive more students at their colleges. More teachers will have to be added, more classrooms provided. It all feeds one thing to another. Salaries will go up to catch more teachers, and of courses tuition will go up too, and that is okay because the gov't is paying the bills. Just like unpaid student loans total about $1 trillion but backed by the gov't. Doesn't all this sound a lot like socialism. Continuing, and then 1/3 of the students who enrolled will eventually drop out resulting in too many teachers, classrooms half filled and what happens next.....layoffs. Yes, we want to thank the Dems for this brilliant idea of free education.
@Me Too
Yes, better to have an ignorant populous were only the rich and connected are educated.
Amazing how other countries have managed to have educated citizens, but once again, the supposed *greatest country on earth* can't manage it.
Yes sir. What ever you say sir. You know best sir.
7
Free tuition doesn't necessary mean more students, it could mean better students because acceptance criteria will be based only on merit, not money
5
if tuition is free, what kind of students will you get. what will be an acceptable college graduation rate once the government foots your bill? 70%? 80%? 90%? 99.9%. there will be a generalized dumbing down of the american college educational system so that students can not only graduate but graduate in 4 years. you show up to class you pass!!! make college affordable not free.
4
@goldenbears
When I applied for college, I had to be accepted based on my GPA, SAT/ACT scores, an entrance essay among other requirements.
Taking tuition costs out of the picture doesn't mean that anyone gets to go to whatever college they want. It means those who work hard, and prove they are capable can go to college regardless of ones economic situation.
Also, I do not believe that wealth is a precursor to intelligence (as your post seems to indicate).
36
I’m not following, as the argument is flawed. Schools still have an acceptance criteria—that won’t disappear because tuition might. In fact, it might be more competitive to get into schools if money isn’t a factor —how many highly capable young people are not applying because they cannot afford it.
I have two kids in college currently. What is also ridiculous is it’s just as expensive for room and board as it is for tuition. It’s out of control!
9
It may be a great idea, but if Democrats run on it they will lose and we will get four more years of Trump -- unfortunately.
8
"With matching grants, the federal government could build in safeguards to ensure the money was well-spent. For example, the money could be restricted to core categories like teacher salaries and academic counseling, rather than administration."
Do you know the meaning of the word fungible?
10
The idea that paying for college tuition is “too expensive” laughable in a country that spends more than $700 billion a year for war.
31
@Serrated Thoughts
Think of Pentagon Inc. as national defense and K-college graduation as national offense.
3
If college graduates make so much additional money, why are they whining for The Working Man to pay their debts.
5
@Bob
Because the cost of education is growing much faster than wages (even college educated wages).
5
Tuition free college? Last time I looked we live in a country who’s leaders (Trump, McConnell and company) are doing their best to take away health care from millions of Americans, are holding up the benefits to 9/11 first responders, working to destroy social security, and led by Betsy DeVos doing their level best to destroy our public school systems. Tuition free college? Not in this country.
14
Why not? America is constantly referred to as the richest, the most powerful, and the greatest country in the world. According to Business Insider US investments in healthcare and education haven't changed much in the last three decades - and it's putting the country far behind its peers, according to a new study from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington.
After ranking countries based on their levels of education and health, the study found that the US ranked 27th in the world on these metrics as of 2016, behind a host of top-ranking Nordic countries, including Finland, Iceland, Denmark, and the Netherlands.
Priorities need to be rethought.
8
we can be like Nordic countries and end immigration.
1
College tuition could easily be reduced to a nominal fee, by making at least the first two years on-line. There is no difference between viewing a computer presentation in an expensive classroom and viewing it at home on your personal computer. In fact, it is superior to be able to review the presentation on your own, which would also save on travel expenses and environmental pollution. The current business model for colleges is archaic and is designed to exploit students and their families.
8
@RC Well, it's easier the cheat online that it is in a classroom (though many professors look the other way in the classroom too). Try Googling this phrase: "take my online classes for me."
@RC, I disagree with you. Having been in academics almost all of my life, I can tell you that personal contact with a professor and other students yields a much better education.
9
@RC Online post-college courses mostly work for me. The big saving is that one top teacher can reach thousands of students - and students can work at their convenience without the commute time, and can review material as necessary.
But in my experience the attempts to encourage personal interaction among students haven't worked very well. Improvement is needed here.
1
Depends on how it's done. If it's truly public colleges, where the state controls both the college and the cost of the college, then sure it could be affordable. If it's some scheme for the state to pick up the tab and the colleges to just charge whatever, then it will be utterly corrupt and bankrupting. The aid system has already been responsible for tuition inflation, just as the semi public medical insurance system has led to medical inflation. When public and private are mixed incorrectly without enough accountability the public gets gouged.
8
It is too often assumed that every high school graduate would benefit greatly from a college education. It may well,be, however, that more
explicit vocational training would be a better alternative for all those whose aptitude does not suit them well for college-level study.
68
we hear a roar that we need more trade schooling. But that quickly shifts to all kids going to college for no apparent reason.
4
Plus longterm gain--fruits of education will be recycled back into the economy--who knows how many fold, unlike other depleting federal govt programs
1
How about pumping up the quality of k-12 education, including implementing vocational education programs for those who aren’t interested in another two or four years of sitting at a desk? Improving primary and secondary education, would also necessitate true attacks on poverty: ensuring that slums were cleaned up, that free child care were available, that streets and playgrounds were safe.
10
@Carol M Free! Whee! Until the producers cant produce.
Why can't we call it merit-based college instead and provide tuition for high-performing students a la the Texas model, top 10% of your HS class to ensure equal access for rural and poor urban kids, with special cases for top testers from suburban schools densely packed with high-performing kids and keep Pell for the very poorest to help with their share? Then provide discounts from there on down. Pay 0% of costs for top 10% of kids, you pay 10% of costs if you're in the top 20%, 20% of costs if you're in the top 30%, 50% of costs if you're in the top half, you get the picture.
We don't have to totally take merit out of the picture to lessen the burden on students. Not everyone can go to college and kids need to have some skin in the game.
This "free or nothing" discussion is just silly in my opinion and I consider myself pro-poor, pro-college.
15
@L, Good idea. But the Texas model, based on funding from oil revenues, is not applicable to all States.
@JerryV
If we all pitched in for a national model, surely we could educate the top 10% of our graduates.
It would definitely be less than what's being proposed in this article, and distributed equally across all states.
We can afford to provide college education for deserving students that have shown academic merit. We as a country just choose not to.
1
Once upon a time getting a college degree was a one way ticket to a great job. The reason was that it was difficult to go to college. You had to have money or work your way through school in order to pay for it.
Fast forward to today - Anyone can get a federally subsidized loan in order pay for college. Now that anyone can go to college, each semester the market is flooded with graduates and it means it no longer guarantees a person a good job. The quality of the graduates have gone down dramatically.
If college if now free and EVERYONE can go, it will make a college degree as valuable as a high school degree.
13
@Kev
It will reduce the proportion of Republicans in the population. Studies by Pew show that the higher your educational level the more likely you are to be a liberal. Besides, more knowledge is always better than less.
7
Everyone could afford to go, but not everyone will be accepted. Just like now, school’s have an acceptance criteria. That will not disappear. It may make it more competitive to get in because money will no longer eliminate poor but highly capable students.
2
@Kev
Since the 15-year inflationary recession that slammed into Baby Boomers/Gen X from roughly 1970-1985, the usefulness of a college degree has been dependent on one's areas of academic concentration and the prevailing economy at the time of graduation.
2
Free tuition could be helpful, but for the truly poor, room, board, books, etc will still be a show-stopper. Simply the opportunity cost of not working will be a show-stopper. The article acknowledges this, saying we will still need financial aid, but the point needs to be highlighted.
I also agree with the comments about how college could become even more high-school like. I just read that 37% of Colorado high school students attending college need help to do college-level work. College is not a good fit for everyone. Subsidies for vocational schools should be treated the same as college.
14
@Jessica, You are correct. But work-study programs can be used for fees, books and room & board. Of course, this works better in commuter colleges.
I just don't understand people that will pick apart and trash an idea like free tuition (and single payer healthcare for that matter) that would do so much good both morally and economically for our society. It's almost as if these people begrudge giving the gifts of higher education and healthcare that would obviously help so many people. Helping others improve their lives will raise the standard of living for all.
28
@JK, Some of the people you cite are the ones who may be looking for communists under their beds every night.
1
@JK, Some of the people you cite are the ones who may be looking for communists under their beds every night.
Making college free will not solve the problems facing Americans. We have dumbed down our education system to the lowest level already. I see this every single day in corporate America. It is awful - American students coming out of our US educational systems cannot do basic math, read, write, think. Let's not make it any worse than it already is please! We need to redo the entire structure from K-12 and up and make it harder not easier!
78
@Sarah99, I sincerely request that you, and every other reader who has some hiring responsibility contact the provost, foundation director, dean of a college or other VIP representing a college where you have you have been disappointed in the skills of the alumni. Here in the trenches, we faculty are trying to maintain the rigor of our fields. But there is a pressure to pass students so they don't have a self-confidence crisis. We are also asked to increase our class (which is cheaper for the college). The consequence of this is that the class work becomes easier.
27
@CM A self-confidence crisis? That is so truly sad. If kids don't know much about what they are studying, then they should feel at least a little bad about it.
And whoever is paying for it should feel even worse.
I attended a public college that was extremely competitive. We were all middle class and working class kids who knew we could fail, and instead of having a confidence crisis, we would be asked to account for wasting our parent's very hard-earned money.
Our entry-level science classes had enrollment in the hundreds. Nothing was dumbed down. It weeded out a lot of people. Very few people failed out once they entered their major.
9
Absolutely..... first fix basic education, then make college affordable but not free. Most people do not appreciate free and will take advantage of it. The kids going to college at 18 think it is a party..... maybe they should do some community service before getting free college and make college tuition reflect people’s economic status. Plenty of us can afford paying for college.
2
The math here is simple, straightforward and convincing.
Sadly, it is exactly the math that the rural voters in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania to which the nation must pander, are incapable of comprehending.
3
@insight The math depends on static conditions. Similarly, when one state does single payer on its own (as New York and Vermont both considered doing) the numbers look like they might work--until you take into account that conditions will change, and people will immigrate from tax free red states to get their cancer treated, turning the single payer state into the country's free clinic, host of the party buying for all. Similarly, if the government just blindly pays tuition then tuition will rise unchecked. An example is the way rent rates near military bases are always exactly the maximum of what the military is willing to pay for housing allowance.
1
@insight, the kids from rural areas who go to college and are successful usually don't come back to their small towns. The jobs and cultural amenities are scarce back home; the kids graduate and stay in cities or suburbs. Thus, college can be perceived as a drain on the rural talent pool that is not replenished. In terms of the local economy, the educational investment doesn't seem to pay off.
1
@CM Is that a good reason to deprive the small town student?
'How ya gonna keep them down on the farm, after they've seen college?
Really?
1
Sure, increase demand with no risk and that will have effect on price or the quality of the supply that will have to grow rapidly.
No risk work always leads to good outcomes. The K-12 public school systems are all in great shape, low cost and high quality, fair to all, right?
3
@David You are neglecting the fact that room board and books are more than half of the yearly cost. Students will have 'skin in the game'!
If public universities are able to educate for a median of $8,738 per student per year, why are private universities charging $50,000-plus?
And more importantly, why is the federal government subsidizing such outrageously overpriced private sector tuition?
28
@Sam $8,738 is the median in-state tuition. There are lots of out-of-state students who pay for more than $30,000 per year for public universities. Plus, those public universities get funding from the states while the private ones don't get any of that.
4
@Godfrey Yes, out-of-state students generate extra profit at public universities. But the actual cost of producing a degree is closer to the in-state tuition rate (varying, of course, based on each state's per-student subsidy). I teach at a public university. I've sat through many budget meetings over the years and I can say with certainty: it does not cost anywhere near $30,000/year to educate a student.
11
@Sam Say 30 students per class, supporting a "professor" who makes, say 60,000 a year. That's 2000 a year to pay her salary. I guess the rest goes to ...what? Is there still a mortgage on the buildings?
3
Post-secondary education MUST cost something. Students have to have some skin in the game or else they don't take it seriously. I have taught undergraduate, and also taught the same courses in Quebec's CEGEP system, which bridges high school and the freshman year. The provinces charges students a roughly $150 registration fee but no tuition. As such it was largely unselective and I found students to be largely uncommitted, compared to their tuition-paying brethren at university.
That said, the price-point has to be lower than it currently is for undergraduates because deep student debt does not beget wise behavior either. Students I knew were going to fail a course would not heed my advice and drop it early enough to get their money back, because the thought of having to extend their stay to make up credits was painful.
Student debt also has an impact on retirement and employers. When young people enter the workforce late, with substantial debt, they defer many aspects of adult life, and cannot earn enough during the reduced number of working years between entry and pensionable age. That creates incentives to change jobs in search of greater compensation. The countdown clock to retirement ticks more loudly when you have student debt to pay.
11
@Mark Hammer There will still be room board and books to pay for. That is a pretty significant 'skin in the game'!
@Zeke Black I always made a point of aiming for the least expensive text I felt could serve my students well, because I knew they'd be putting off purchase until late October or something equally risky if it was too costly. If low cost moved their purchase earlier in the semester, the student's likelihood of success was increased.
But you're right about the cost of post-secondary education only being partly a function of tuition. Lack of affordable student housing probably constitutes every bit as bit a barrier as tuition costs.
I will still assert that we haven't yet drawn the connection between late student-debt-ridden entry into the labor market and what happens at the other end of working life. Simply moving pensionable age upwards doesn't really solve anything, since it ends up depriving recent graduates of jobs. Personally, I think employers have to take on more of the burden of employee development rather than expecting education and students to shoulder the entire learning and financial load.
If the problem is the high cost of college education and high levels of student debt, having the federal government involved in paying will only result in higher costs. Do the public universities have any skin in the game, or do they just hand out non-marketable degrees and collect their tuition from feds?
"First, about $37 billion of the federal money went toward tuition tax credits and other tax benefits, which disproportionately helped wealthier families, who were likely to send their children to college without government help."
It took me only a few minutes to see that these tax credits are subject to income limits which wouldn't be considered "wealthy" by many. Guessing that didn't fit into his narrative.
4
Free college for all - nope - I don't think so. You always hear about free college in Europe - but you don't hear the whole story. College is not free - someone has to pay for it. AND not everyone can go to college - you have to qualify academically in most of these areas to go to college. Students are put on a university track before they reach college age. As an instructor at a public funded college - this would knock out about 90% of the students in my class. So no - I am not paying for students who do not have the academic ability or do not care enough to put in the time to pass the class.
32
@Heloise2 If free schooling were so in demand, why do we require students to attend 12 years of schooling by law, needing coercion to "educate"? Education provided to those who want it and will work to acquire it is great; but central planning just says if they can't pass the test, get rid of the test. It's why so many heading to college today cannot read or write or apply critical reasoning skills, dumbing down higher ed to match the low quality K-12 system.
3
Making college "free" is just an invitation to colleges to raise tuition. Since the only paying customer is the government, there is no incentive to manage costs.
As it is, many professors spend little time teaching, and spend most of their time doing research, many on items of questionable value.
This is just another way to waste taxpayer money.
16
Holders of four-year college degrees still enjoy a substantial lifetime earnings advantage over those who do not have a degree... so taxing non-degree-holders to subsidize additional wealth for degree-holders seems like Robin Hood in reverse. To be fair, the degree-holders' additional earnings would need to yield tax revenue that also benefits non-degree-holders. That's certainly not impossible, but we need to make sure the tax piece doesn't fall through the cracks.
1
Why not just tack an extra year on to high school and make it mandatory?
The other year could be made up by beefing up courses, extending the school year, or (heaven forbid!) making school hours match work hours.
1
@Shiloh 2012 Yeah, mandatory learning, how re-education camp like....
Education only works when the students wants it and will work hard to obtain it.
3
I support free college tuition for specific degrees in areas like medicine and engineering, and coupled with GPA requirements. Making all college free sounds like a mistake.
8
The writer assumes a static college population. However, if the price is $0, a good economist would surmise that the demand for that produce would increase which would increase the costs the taxpayer would need to bear to maintain the system, create shortages in the system, eliminate much of the incentive to finish college and probably other unintended consequences (require colleges to build more housing and classroom space?).
In fact, the system of government subsidies that exists is the most likely way to make college affordable. States, however, have been cutting those subsidies and raising direct tuition. UC was free at it's founding. It cost about $2,600/year in today's dollars in 1980.
4
If you look at this as a percentage of annual government spending it's not much. Military spending is 10 TIMES THAT MUCH. Would you rather educate your populace or build guns and bombs? Just think about that sentence for a minute and let it sink in...
45
In all of this free college discussion, nobody discusses the incentive effects on students. If students get college for free, then they have much less incentive to study and get something out of the experience. This is certainly the case in European countries, like Austria, where tuition is close to nonexistent. As a professor who works in one of these countries. The students do not care.
One thing that is not missing from this discussion but that is worth mentioning is that free college is a big giveaway for the upper middle class. I do not see how this is good policy.
I am heartily and enthusiastically in favor of increasing support for public higher education. I am also in favor of increasing support for lower-income families. But making college free will have adverse effects on student incentives, and it is bad policy in terms of income distribution.
24
@Jane Just not true. I'm old enough to remember when most public universities were either free or very close to free. The incentive was to study more, to strive for higher degrees, and get greater training.
And let's recall that after WW II, America paid every penny of tuition and fees and books for every American veteran who was accepted to college. Any college. That GI Bill revolutionized American society, transforming us into a highly educated and technically sophisticated nation.
We'll get more of that with free university.
63
@Jane How is increasing the middle class a bad thing. That's what EVERY politician is promising. That's what was so great about the country 60~70 years ago.
MOST people could afford a couple cars, a servant, a couple of kids + some pets, a family vacation every year, and and college for the kids. Not to mention a house!
Now only rich people can afford those things and everyone else is left out in the cold. So please explain to me how lifting the majority of the country back into the middle class is a bad thing? Unless you think only having rich and poor people is better with the rich have thousands of of times the wealth of the poor???
14
@Jane Hi Jane, do you have any data to back up your anecdotal evidence? a simple google search turns out a host of evidence that graduation rates are higher in europe. see this for example: http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/01/07/america-losing-graduation-rates-higher-europe-us/
11
"While college tuition is high at many private schools, median in-state tuition at four-year public universities was only $8,738 in the 2017-18 academic year."
If the federal government were footing the bill, I think state legislators might just decide to raise tuition at their public colleges and universities...
14
@retired guy
Sort of like how defense contractors might just decide to raise the price of toilet seats?
The difference is that there is no uber-powerful "state public education lobby" standing ready to line the pockets of GOP senators and representatives to eliminate regulations in any legislation that would prevent these types of obvious inequities.
4
@retired guy
It need not work that way. The federal government should give the money directly to the university on condtion that there be no charges for tuition.
@Solo.Owl Yes, and then simply the Room Board and Books would cost, so it still really wouldn't be Free, as so many are assuming.
Before we make college free, we need to understand why so many degrees are useless in the post-industrial marketplace. There are far more grievance study majors than engineering or medical. I'd be happy to pay more taxes so as many STEM students as possible can acquire an education, but do not want to enable any more identity (ethnic, gender, queer, etc.) experts who do nothing more than make demands based on the talking points memorized from the few classes they actually attended.
11
@Grunt I suggest you do some reading on the subject. Most breakthroughs with paradigm-shifting global effects are the result of combining Liberal Arts Education with STEM know-how.
Only focusing on STEM just perpetuates the same lab results. Focusing only on Liberal Art shuts down the lab. Focusing on BOTH makes the lab test something that will actually make people's lives better.
Steve Jobs said the most important class he took was calligraphy. Newton's degree was in English. I work in a test lab at Intel and my most important classes were Psychology and Creative Writing.
53
@Darin Herrick You are testing computer chips and you claim that most useful classes for you were Psychology and Creative Writing? Really?
Most important scientific discoveries were done by researchers with a very strong STEM knowledge, and also with intellectual curiosity to go in many directions and to have a different perspective.
1
The delivery mechanism of college lectures is inefficient. While I think that an actual campus learning community is important, there are classes online with regard to most topics. There is no reason to replicate a physics 101 lecture when MIT has theirs available to view. You can have graduate assistants run problem sessions and labs where interaction is needed.
3
@Dax When I was taking 4 hours of computer classes per day, the most important part of them was NOT the hands-on or the sessions where we problem-solved with students.
The single most important part was the lectures. They were SO important that I still quote them to people 15 years later.
The instructor said "I need to focus more on lab exercises". I said "Please don't. I enjoy your lectures and I am learning FAR more from them." He was surprised, but shouldn't have been.
The lab exercises taught me to problem solve. The lectures taught me applied knowledge (in other words, wisdom).
As for videos, SORRY. YOU ARE WRONG. The most important part of lectures was when someone questioned the instructor and disagreed with him (argued with him). Because then he PROVED that he was right and they were wrong.
Just sitting like a bump on a log listening to fact and figures is pointless. Narrative and practical application QUESTIONING is how we learn something useful.
13
As someone with gobs of student debt, I absolutely appreciate the push to eliminate or at least reduce the amount of debt that students walk away with. Student is a shackle on my generation that even professionals slightly older than I simply do not have. The roughly-2008 divide in terms of tuition rates is astronomical.
But there has to be a systemic revamp at the same time, or a tuition-free system will simply turn colleges into high schools for young adults. We need to find a way to expand trade schools and streamline technical degrees like nursing and IT work, and we need to provide college-inclined young folks who are still searching for their purpose in life less expensive civilian soul-searching options - the Peace Corps and Americorps being great examples. Programs such as those will decrease the burden on both the colleges and the taxpayers, while still giving all students, of all backgrounds, real options for their future.
37
@htg
Peace corps and Americorps require a degree but otherwise agree completely.
1
@htg
Mandatory national service after leaving school (military service, Peace Corps, Americorps, or a revival of the Civilian Conservation Corps to fix trails, &c on public lands)
3
@L Americorp requires high school degree only. I know students who used this as a gap year between high school and college.
1
"First, about $37 billion of the federal money went toward tuition tax credits and other tax benefits, which disproportionately helped wealthier families,"
No, these credits don't primarily help the wealthy as the cutoff for a couple filing jointly is $160k.
8
"... is a smart and humane investment, and could be more affordable than you think."
Thank you for telling us the truth: That free college tuition that has been proposed by Bernie Sanders is affordable, and the benefits far exceed the cost.
Thank you for telling us the truth!!!!
17
Wow...
"Free Harvard for All"
Wow...
@W in the Middle
When did Harvard become a public university? That's what he's proposing; free tuition to public colleges and universities.
Wow...
Creating a strawman so one can burn it down and claim some kind of hollow victory.
Wow...
8
@Garrick
Oooh - he doesn't want to shut down the private options???
1
@W in the Middle
No, he doesn't
I wonder though, how tuition free will change the landscape of what colleges can and will offer in terms of programming and amenities. If students are still going to need to take out loans for room and board, textbooks, course supplies, and other extras, there will be still be issues. Though certainly the burden will be lessened. There is also certainly room for universities to tighten up executive leadership salary bloat and incentives. It's also worth noting that college isn't for everyone, and that is okay. Society is always going to need retail and service sector works, tradespeople, etc.
2
@Wendy M
College isn't for everyone, but should their financial circumstances be the reason not to go, instead of ability and interest?
Let’s see what happened to medical fees when the government started to pay for Medicare. Rapid fee raises to get the federal dollars and to think that whoever pays the piper won’t soon call the tune is a joke. See what Medicare pays for a gall bladder operation today. $425 including hospital admission, the surgery and 90 post op care. It’s about $1,100 to replace a water pump on a Chevy. To think that students who could get into an Ivy would not go to a decent public university and thereby displace the more needy admits is not thinking this through.
2
@James, MD is your point that medicare pays too much? or too low? hard to tell... anyway, Medicare rates are lower than private insurance rates, so there's no indication that if something is subsidized through a government program is necessarily more costly
3
Medicare Paid about $1500 for gall bladder surgery in 1978 when a Buick Regal was about $3000. The government after a while decided they could set lower fees to control the budget. I think the tuition would initially go up to harvest the federal money, then when the budget was hurt, comes the same type of price control.
I am 59 and in good health. It would benefit my local schools if I returned to school and got an education-related certification and if I was willing to work as a rather low paid public school teacher for my remaining years of excellent health and energy. But to spend the money for the cost in addition to the time? Not really motivated to do so. However, higher education expenses for public servants who are low paid (such as preschool teachers especially, school teachers also) really should be covered by the taxpayers. The skills directly benefit the public education system.
12
Hmmm, I’m not against free public education, we already provide it through high school. Why not extend it? Most advanced countries, though, don’t attempt to send everyone through college. After all would you rather make good money repairing jet engines after completing two years of technical school, or slightly above minimum wage working at Starbucks with a college degree? Me too.
37
@DFP yes most European countries have a college track and a vocational track established by the end of middle school
11
@Dax also in Canada, or they did. Also in this country when I was in high school (our 50th reunion is tonight!) There was an academic track for the college bound, business track for retail and general employment, and technical track for those going into trades. Most classes in the first two years overlapped with more subjects diverging in the last two years.
1