Public K12 costs $10K/year to $18K/year in the US. More for elite private K12.
States have been pulling their subsidies for higher-ed for years.
Best solution:
The Federal govt. should match state spending, if the states want the funding to strengthen their talent pools.
States have been pulling their subsidies for higher-ed for years.
Best solution:
The Federal govt. should match state spending, if the states want the funding to strengthen their talent pools.
7
Hillary Clinton, as a pillar for her campaign, is planning on passing a bill to make college tuition free for any family that collectively earns less than $125,000 a year, or $10,000 per month. This seems to be an ingenious idea, as very few professions boast an annual salary that high, let alone that of 2 people. However, this proposal, though it benefits families in lower and middle-class demographics, has the potential to cripple the US. Today, most colleges keep tuition prices comparatively reasonable in an attempt to lure students from their competitors; these colleges are willing to be flexible with the price of tuition, if need be, in order to gain some semblance of profit. With the plan Senator Clinton announced, these same colleges get paid by the United States government, rather than these individual families. They can afford to grossly inflate the price of tuition, since the student and their family is no longer worried about the affordability but prestige of the college. The money the government pays to these institutions comes directly from the Treasury, the same Treasury that, as Kevin Carey stated, already expends tens of billions of dollars each year for these same colleges. This plan only increases the amount of money that colleges drain directly from the government and plunges the economy into greater turmoil. Although this plan benefits students that normally could not afford college, the economy would be further strained to a point of potential collapse.
4
One of the main reasons I supported Hillary over Bernie during the primaries was Bernie's truly idiotic "free" tuition plan, which of course was not a plan at all, just a rallying cry. Now I am sorry to see that Hillary has partially adopted this totally unworkable idea (for all the reasons cited by the article). HOWEVER, Bernie did identify a real problem in our country. Middle class (and below) students have to borrow unreasonable sums of money at non-refinanceable interest rates (thanks again, Republicans). These huge debt burdens are handicapping these kids and our society as a whole due to the corresponding burdens on their buying power. Conservatives and others are correct to say that college can NEVER be free (someone is paying the costs), but their lack of concern about and solutons for student debt is so typically Republican. So I'm still supporting Hillary but she should drop this silliness.
10
To control cost; any college that can't keep within an annual price increase becomes intelligible to participate. Colleges are engaged in a facilities war to attract students and too many of these facilities improve lifestyle and leisure not academics.
10
Every credit in high school should be a credit towards college or trades tuition.
Graduate with enough credits and you have earned "free" tuition. Of course you will still have living expenses and the foregone income during those years to account for but at least there would be some additional incentive to achieving high school results.
The teachers get paid no matter what the results, I think high school students should get "paid" too.
Graduate with enough credits and you have earned "free" tuition. Of course you will still have living expenses and the foregone income during those years to account for but at least there would be some additional incentive to achieving high school results.
The teachers get paid no matter what the results, I think high school students should get "paid" too.
1
My older brothers paid no tuition at the City University of New York, but open admissions meant overcrowded classes and of course, tuition. The old system was too competitive and those who otherwise would have never, "made the grade" wanted this benefit for themselves, not the best for society. So resources were diverted to remedial classes and by the time I graduated, nearly a decade later, the hard sciences, physics and chemistry, were shadows of their former selves.
Still, if my student loans could be forgiven for starting a business, I'd qualify for a business loan and start production immediately. Until then, I need the security of a steady income to service my obligations. At least, my degrees in economics and political science explain the predicament we face. Forgetting recent history, as Senator Sanders did in his call for a return to free college education, is to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Still, if my student loans could be forgiven for starting a business, I'd qualify for a business loan and start production immediately. Until then, I need the security of a steady income to service my obligations. At least, my degrees in economics and political science explain the predicament we face. Forgetting recent history, as Senator Sanders did in his call for a return to free college education, is to repeat the mistakes of the past.
6
A good start would be for the university system stop the expansion of non-teaching spending, including large sports programs, administrative ranks (and pay) and research subsidized by tuition dollars.
I'm from Canada originally where tuition is a fraction of what the US schools charge, even for foreign students (no subsidy). The reason is simple - they keep things lean.
People blame cutbacks by states on tuition hikes, but that's only half the problem here. Since my son is also Canadian, I will encourage him to look at school up there. I have no interest in footing the bill for a multi-million dollar football coach's salary.
I'm from Canada originally where tuition is a fraction of what the US schools charge, even for foreign students (no subsidy). The reason is simple - they keep things lean.
People blame cutbacks by states on tuition hikes, but that's only half the problem here. Since my son is also Canadian, I will encourage him to look at school up there. I have no interest in footing the bill for a multi-million dollar football coach's salary.
20
At present approximately 60% of US secondary school graduates go on to attend a four year college. Approximately 30% of those students will graduate in 5years. The cost for this rate of attrition is enormous. So how can countries, like Germany, where tuition to State colleges is free, pay for these costs? Simple -- only a fraction of students ever graduate from what we would call high school and of those who do, only a fraction are admitted to college. To be admitted to what we call college students must pass a very rigorous exam (Abitur) .. admission is competitive ! The result is that only about 25-30% of students attend college. These students represent the "cream" of the academic crop. For obvious reasons, we could not have a system that pays for college tuition for 30% of our students based on student test performance.
17
how do these costs compare to the cost o fan Aircraft carrier, or those new fighter jets?
4
The whole idea which Mr. Sanders first floated (and now Mrs. Clinton oddly advocates) is a glaring example of just how irresponsible both politicians really are. They seem to have no understanding about money and how difficult it is to obtain.
11
Why should taxes on the many be used to fund luxury consumption by the few?
10
Many college degrees have little or no economic value so it is unclear why the taxpayer should subsidize these degrees. Many of the degrees that do have economic value are too difficult for lots of people.
16
If I were president ....
Propose a program to Congress that does the following:
1-Establishes a ground floor and a ceiling on tuition/housing costs nationally.
2-Index this to inflation.
3-Establish the program as a state "buy in" under the condition that the state provide the current national average of support (indexed to inflation).
4-Ensure that the Federal contribution is the inflation adjusted average (all states) that students currently borrow to pay tuition.
5-Establish a policy of four years Baccalaureate, three years Masters, and five years Doctorate as Federally subsidized.
6-Establish a Federal testing program to validate educations provided.
7-Do not use income level tests: This is "Educating America for the 21st Century World" and should be treated like High School was 100 years ago.
When the Republicans complain (they will) advise them that American Greatness comes from great Americans who get their start in great education. Education for the rich alone does not produce enough entrepreneurs.
Propose a program to Congress that does the following:
1-Establishes a ground floor and a ceiling on tuition/housing costs nationally.
2-Index this to inflation.
3-Establish the program as a state "buy in" under the condition that the state provide the current national average of support (indexed to inflation).
4-Ensure that the Federal contribution is the inflation adjusted average (all states) that students currently borrow to pay tuition.
5-Establish a policy of four years Baccalaureate, three years Masters, and five years Doctorate as Federally subsidized.
6-Establish a Federal testing program to validate educations provided.
7-Do not use income level tests: This is "Educating America for the 21st Century World" and should be treated like High School was 100 years ago.
When the Republicans complain (they will) advise them that American Greatness comes from great Americans who get their start in great education. Education for the rich alone does not produce enough entrepreneurs.
2
A way to work a plan would be for the federal government to contribute money at first to the highest spending states so their students would get a free education. Then as the lower spending states begin to match the higher spending states the federal student subsidies would kick in there as well. That gives the lower spending states an incentive to increase spending for higher education.
1
Free tuition is common in some European universities. Students do not study and stay in college for years - it's free... "They definitely did not take it seriously". Regardless how in height statusis the College. In others colleges you have to compete and keep a standard of "excellence”, to stay. Interestingly during the first 3 years all students take the same courses; subsequently, for next years of study, students decide for a trade school or a specific white collar or advanced career. This approach to college education could answer many questions. As I see, budget, tuition, and other costs will be less. A change in philosophy of education will be necessary, but not impossible
2
I think it's also interesting to note that free tuition does nothing for the much higher cost for fees at public universities. In Massachusetts, students are awarded free tuition based on their MCAS scores but could still graduate with enormous debt because the tuition is a pittance compared to the fees most schools charge.
Why don't we, as a nation, consider national service as a requirement after high school, in exchange for which students would get a free education at any public institution to which they can be accepted? The variety of opportunities national service could provide on both the local and national level could be varied and exciting for young high school grads. It would be an investment in the young person, the community and citizenship.
Why don't we, as a nation, consider national service as a requirement after high school, in exchange for which students would get a free education at any public institution to which they can be accepted? The variety of opportunities national service could provide on both the local and national level could be varied and exciting for young high school grads. It would be an investment in the young person, the community and citizenship.
1
When I was going to college, I received my father's SS death benefits - which essentially paid for living expenses - tuition I either earned or took out a loan.
Of course, St Ron thought that receiving a death benefit until age 22 was killing SS (and promoting liberal thinkers), so away that went. (I'm making a pretty good living as an engineer, and my father wasn't going to collect on his 40 years of work, so SS really made out on me... Thanks, St Ron for killing a pretty well-thought out plan...)
Anyway, I would propose to use the minimum payout from SS to pay for living expenses for up to 130 credit hours, full time status students, then having the students pay back their accounts, with interest set at Treasury rates (for administering the loans.) Maybe have FICA increased by 10% until the loan is paid off - the more you make, the faster you pay off your "loan" to yourself.
Also, this might be useful for taking tuition loans (for state-sponsored schools) - take a loan from SS (not your account) for a slightly higher rate (so SS would make some money to stay solvent) and, once again, have FICA take out maybe an additional 10% until the loan is paid off. The students would get a tax deduction, and maybe their future employer could chip in.
Everybody wins - students could have a reasonable loan that they take out from themselves for living expenses, with payments equal to a percentage of their earnings, and tuition funding/payback would help the SS fund!
Of course, St Ron thought that receiving a death benefit until age 22 was killing SS (and promoting liberal thinkers), so away that went. (I'm making a pretty good living as an engineer, and my father wasn't going to collect on his 40 years of work, so SS really made out on me... Thanks, St Ron for killing a pretty well-thought out plan...)
Anyway, I would propose to use the minimum payout from SS to pay for living expenses for up to 130 credit hours, full time status students, then having the students pay back their accounts, with interest set at Treasury rates (for administering the loans.) Maybe have FICA increased by 10% until the loan is paid off - the more you make, the faster you pay off your "loan" to yourself.
Also, this might be useful for taking tuition loans (for state-sponsored schools) - take a loan from SS (not your account) for a slightly higher rate (so SS would make some money to stay solvent) and, once again, have FICA take out maybe an additional 10% until the loan is paid off. The students would get a tax deduction, and maybe their future employer could chip in.
Everybody wins - students could have a reasonable loan that they take out from themselves for living expenses, with payments equal to a percentage of their earnings, and tuition funding/payback would help the SS fund!
3
I'm kind of annoyed by all Hillary's "plans" none of which will see the light of the day once Congress gets done with them. (Still, I'll take her over the guy with no plans at all.)
In the case of college costs, it is a complex problem and will not be easily solved simply by throwing more money. I would have more confidence if she would recognize this and simply say that making college more affordable and accessible is one of her priorities and that she'll work with all the stakeholders (Congress, universities, state governments, students) to make it happen.
For example, I've seen it mentioned elsewhere that one of the biggest obstacles to college for many young people is not tuition (for which much help does already exist) but lack of child care (which too often doesn't).
In the case of college costs, it is a complex problem and will not be easily solved simply by throwing more money. I would have more confidence if she would recognize this and simply say that making college more affordable and accessible is one of her priorities and that she'll work with all the stakeholders (Congress, universities, state governments, students) to make it happen.
For example, I've seen it mentioned elsewhere that one of the biggest obstacles to college for many young people is not tuition (for which much help does already exist) but lack of child care (which too often doesn't).
4
I appreciate that university costs are different than they were in my school days, BUT...........
I went to an Ivy without a penny of my parent's money and without a penny of loans.
I pursued every scrap of scholarship money.
I worked all kinds of jobs (my best paying university job was "milker" in the university dairy barns which required coming to work at 5AM). I took jobs in the grad school library stacks where I could read and get paid. I did custom car detailing at the posh fraternities keeping the Austin Healey's and Jags looking sharp. I appled for summer school scholarships at other schools where I combined more student jobs with grant money to get extra credits and enjoy different parts of the US at the same time. I maintained a dented but serviceable 55 Chevy for all four years.
When I left school I owed nothing. My parents were financially whole. I had learned all sorts of things from what I believe was a total of 14 different jobs.
I went off to the Army in VN, came back alive, and used the GI Bill plus academic scholarships to totally fund my grad school years.
Again, no debt. No parential buck.,
I went to an Ivy without a penny of my parent's money and without a penny of loans.
I pursued every scrap of scholarship money.
I worked all kinds of jobs (my best paying university job was "milker" in the university dairy barns which required coming to work at 5AM). I took jobs in the grad school library stacks where I could read and get paid. I did custom car detailing at the posh fraternities keeping the Austin Healey's and Jags looking sharp. I appled for summer school scholarships at other schools where I combined more student jobs with grant money to get extra credits and enjoy different parts of the US at the same time. I maintained a dented but serviceable 55 Chevy for all four years.
When I left school I owed nothing. My parents were financially whole. I had learned all sorts of things from what I believe was a total of 14 different jobs.
I went off to the Army in VN, came back alive, and used the GI Bill plus academic scholarships to totally fund my grad school years.
Again, no debt. No parential buck.,
8
... and Hillary's shameless giveaway to get votes again ignores middle class people. Those making $125,000 per year are not rich. They don't qualify for social services. They don't get tax deductions. If they have great, stable jobs are generous corporations, then they don't get tax-free pensions and retirement plans.
They already pay full tuition for their children's college. Under Hillary's plan they will pay more.
They already pay full tuition for their children's college. Under Hillary's plan they will pay more.
6
Great article. But there are several other things wrong with the plan.
Clinton's plan will increase supply and decrease quality.
We need a plan that creates the right economic incentives. College EDUCATION is already low quality and overpriced. We need a president with a smart plan - not just knee-jerk campaign promises to get votes.
Clinton's plan will increase supply and decrease quality.
We need a plan that creates the right economic incentives. College EDUCATION is already low quality and overpriced. We need a president with a smart plan - not just knee-jerk campaign promises to get votes.
6
Not everyone should go to college. There are many good blue collar jobs, some that have workers approaching retirement that employers are having a difficult time replacing.
The push that everyone go to college partially stems from parents who didn't want kids to get their hands dirty. Some people have an aptitude for blue collar work that would require schools doing vocational training and then maybe community college. We need to fix the secondary schools first.
Our budget needs to be closer to being balanced....we can't keep pushing the can down the road. Life isn't fair...not everyone can afford to go to college and will have to look at other options.
If we are going to have free tuition government will need to help those of us who worked are way through school making $5 an hour and are still paying off student loans.
Finally, our workforce is changing so rapidly due to automation that if I were to do it again I would have looked at a job with a skill or an apprenticeship. Yes there were times when people in blue collar work were laid off and were affected by downturns, but their skills allowed some to work on the side until the economy picked up again.
Politicians are great at intellectual theories that look great on paper or in a speech but fine tuning the specifics for everyone to digest at the same time would be a nice touch.
It was fun to read Great Books listen to lectures, stroll on leafy campuses and root for teams, but years later the ROI isn't there.
The push that everyone go to college partially stems from parents who didn't want kids to get their hands dirty. Some people have an aptitude for blue collar work that would require schools doing vocational training and then maybe community college. We need to fix the secondary schools first.
Our budget needs to be closer to being balanced....we can't keep pushing the can down the road. Life isn't fair...not everyone can afford to go to college and will have to look at other options.
If we are going to have free tuition government will need to help those of us who worked are way through school making $5 an hour and are still paying off student loans.
Finally, our workforce is changing so rapidly due to automation that if I were to do it again I would have looked at a job with a skill or an apprenticeship. Yes there were times when people in blue collar work were laid off and were affected by downturns, but their skills allowed some to work on the side until the economy picked up again.
Politicians are great at intellectual theories that look great on paper or in a speech but fine tuning the specifics for everyone to digest at the same time would be a nice touch.
It was fun to read Great Books listen to lectures, stroll on leafy campuses and root for teams, but years later the ROI isn't there.
10
Great comment. I've been a staunch proponent of blue collar trades for high school graduates for years. So many opt for useless degrees that never pay enough to support themselves. There are some reputable schools that teach traditional trades, the jobs are not easy nor are they glamorous. These jobs could be drivers of a US based economy that won't be outsourced.
I blame the subsidies created by states through lotteries for the current condition of higher education. In my state somewhere around 80% of seniors take the SAT, which should be closer to 30% reflecting the students that have a good chance of graduation. They are sold a bill of goods that everyone can go to college and live happily ever after.
I blame the subsidies created by states through lotteries for the current condition of higher education. In my state somewhere around 80% of seniors take the SAT, which should be closer to 30% reflecting the students that have a good chance of graduation. They are sold a bill of goods that everyone can go to college and live happily ever after.
7
Step 1: Require people to have paid income tax and filed a 1040 before they apply for student aid. It's not free. The taxpayers are paying for it.
2
Graduation rates for schools are based on the percentage who graduate after SIX YEARS. How long will someone be allowed to remain in school and get free tuition?
10
It isn't free. Somebody else is paying.
9
After reading both the article and many of the comments, I have some thoughts. I understand many people's concerns about the outrageous expenditures of some flagship universities and students that take only a few classes and then drop out. I think that any plan about making tuition free should limit the amount of money schools can spend on non academic things and non essential things, for example you don't really want the school cutting the food budget, but the football budget should be fair game. Also, the students should have to put down a down payment that would be refunded upon graduation. This way students will be incentivized to actually graduate, because the drop outs wouldn't get refunds. Also there should be disincentives to getting bad grades and skipping class, maybe if you have excessive non illness related absences you would be charged for the missed classes. Obviously there should be programs that help students get good grades, but if students don't take advantage of free tutoring centers and office hours and then fail, I don't see why they should get to go for free. This would probably make some people think twice about even going to college, which would probably be for the best. Some people feel like they are entitled to inflated grades and football games, but in reality college is for people who are trying to work hard and better themselves as well as society.
6
Clinton says it "states have to step up and meet their obligation". That has not been happening, and we are the worse for it. It might be easier to simply send funds to states with attached conditions so that funds are properly used. Regardless, something does need to happen and I have doubt that some finance wiz kid can come up with a plan, and simplify it enough so that Congress can understand. I suspect the biggest push back might come from private institutions who face loosing talented students to quality public colleges and universities. In the end, money talks.
1
Where are all the Bernie supporters today?
How come you are not rushing to the defense of the plan you were so eager to support during the primary?
Rhetorical question, of course. There never was a plan from Bernie, it was all going to happen by magic. And HRC was being mocked for being "pragmatic" and aiming for something less ambitious but (perhaps, with a changed Congress) doable.
The awful truth is beginning to sink in-- the even more fanciful promises of the Sanders campaign would have met with even more justified criticism had he been the nominee. And there would have been no answer. My goodness, imagine losing a debate to Donald Trump on the merits!?
I look forward to a sensible effort to rationalize education and healthcare by incremental improvements once Hillary is elected. Moving forward takes work, not promises, and work is something she is good at.
How come you are not rushing to the defense of the plan you were so eager to support during the primary?
Rhetorical question, of course. There never was a plan from Bernie, it was all going to happen by magic. And HRC was being mocked for being "pragmatic" and aiming for something less ambitious but (perhaps, with a changed Congress) doable.
The awful truth is beginning to sink in-- the even more fanciful promises of the Sanders campaign would have met with even more justified criticism had he been the nominee. And there would have been no answer. My goodness, imagine losing a debate to Donald Trump on the merits!?
I look forward to a sensible effort to rationalize education and healthcare by incremental improvements once Hillary is elected. Moving forward takes work, not promises, and work is something she is good at.
4
This is no workable plan either, it's sham pitched to millennials who don't know it's no good - and Hillary knows that. That's the kind of lousy candidate she is. Promoting bogus 'solutions' to problems she and Bill helped cause.
2
http://mobile.nytimes.com/comments/2016/07/20/upshot/the-trouble-with-hi...
There has been a huge increase in administrative costs at many universities. While rising tuition is correlated with more borrowing, it is not the primary solution to the situation. Admitting more and more marginal students who will borrow despite free tuition is a large part of it and the lack of meaningful borrowing restrictions along with loan forgiveness programs are the other causes.
There has been a huge increase in administrative costs at many universities. While rising tuition is correlated with more borrowing, it is not the primary solution to the situation. Admitting more and more marginal students who will borrow despite free tuition is a large part of it and the lack of meaningful borrowing restrictions along with loan forgiveness programs are the other causes.
3
This article sparked my interest because of the huge controversy surrounding the candidates for the election this year. For example, the article states that Clinton is advocating for public colleges to be free for all students that are from "any family earning less that $125,00", which I thought sounded unbelievable, yet could be a tremendous feat if it could be accomplished. As I continued reading, I found my perceived opinion before reading the article to be true because there is actually a lot of money that the treasury would have to pay and it could drive an already debt-ridden America to be even higher in debt. In conclusion, this plan to give less-fortunate students a higher level education is a bit too good to be true.
1
There are several other issues with this plan in addition to the funding aspect:
1. Nothing is ever "free" - someone is going to end up paying for it. In this case, it will be the hard-working taxpayers who have the "misfortune" of earning over $125,000, as their children will not be able to benefit from the program.
2. Do we really want more art history majors who took on $50k in debt to pursue a useless degree and now wait tables at a restaurant? This plan doesn't address the problem of students obtaining worthless degrees and then not being able to make significant contributions back to society (i.e. pay taxes so the next generation of students can take advantage of the program).
3. This does not address the propensity for colleges to spend massive amounts of money on "auxiliary" items - athletic programs, brand new stadiums, and top-of-the-line dorms. All these things inflate college costs; simply switching who pays the tuition is not going to curb these excesses.
This promise/program is deeply flawed, and is one of the reasons I am still on the fence about who to vote for in November. Republicans may have no heart, but Democrats have no financial sense.
1. Nothing is ever "free" - someone is going to end up paying for it. In this case, it will be the hard-working taxpayers who have the "misfortune" of earning over $125,000, as their children will not be able to benefit from the program.
2. Do we really want more art history majors who took on $50k in debt to pursue a useless degree and now wait tables at a restaurant? This plan doesn't address the problem of students obtaining worthless degrees and then not being able to make significant contributions back to society (i.e. pay taxes so the next generation of students can take advantage of the program).
3. This does not address the propensity for colleges to spend massive amounts of money on "auxiliary" items - athletic programs, brand new stadiums, and top-of-the-line dorms. All these things inflate college costs; simply switching who pays the tuition is not going to curb these excesses.
This promise/program is deeply flawed, and is one of the reasons I am still on the fence about who to vote for in November. Republicans may have no heart, but Democrats have no financial sense.
8
The solution to the over borrowing problem is not necessarily about providing free tuition. While rising tuition is correlated with more borrowing, it is not the primary driver. Admitting more and more marginal students who will borrow despite free tuition is a large part of it and the lack of meaningful borrowing restrictions along with loan forgiveness programs are the other causes. Even when tuition is stagnant or fully covered by another program such as the HOPE scholarship (like here in GA), Pell Grants or the GiBill, students are borrowing for room and board and other personal expenses, and more of this is coming from non-traditional and graduate level students whose personal expenses have nothing to do with the school (there is no room and board for an online MBA program, but they borrow for this anyway). These indirect expenses account for as much as 2/3rds of a student's borrowing. Since there is an unlimited pool of federal loans at the graduate level - no aggregate limit on grad plus loans, a nearly limitless cap on Staffords of $138,500, nor a limit to the number of degrees one can borrow for, and all of these can be rolled into a income based payment plan and included in loan forgiveness, the whole loan system is ripe for abuse. The solution to this is limiting the amount students can borrow for, what they can borrow for (no indirect expenses), the number of degrees they can borrow for and also the types of degrees one can borrow for.
1
How are graduate students supposed to live if they can't borrow for room and board? And why are graduate loans 5% or over (6.84 recently)? If the country valued education, it would encourage graduate degrees.
3
It sounds, and apparently even the all-mighty GD NYT (per the character Frank in Network) -shazam- agrees, that Margaret Thatcher was right: the problem with 'free stuff' is that eventually you run out of other peoples' money.
3
This would be like hospital pricing, where those who can afford to pay (or have insurance in the case of hospitals) would pay 10X the price of a service as a means to cover the costs of all those who can't or won't pay. This is just plain stupid.
7
Bad idea. There are already millions of college graduates with useless degrees waiting tables, stacking shelves, and playing computer games in their parents' basements, with no ability or will to repay their student loans. We want to double down on that, but with the good old taxpayer picking up the full tab? No thanks. More people need to be trained for useful trades in which they can actually make a living. And be in a position to repay their student loans or pay enough taxes in their lifetime to reimburse the state for their education.
12
The idea of free college tuition just sounds too good to be true and that's exactly what it is. It's one of those things that sound good on paper and the aftermath of the actual project being put into work is just a disaster. Hillary is just trying to grab the eye and hold of Bernie Sander followers and she's doing a job well done. Both of their propositions are just ridiculous. Stating the facts and acknowledging the downfall of this just won't allow it to occur.
Not everyone is focused on going to college to major in psychology 101, sociology, or communications. Many of us are not gifted with that "go by the book" intelligence. Some are gifted with hands on abilities. We're going for those blue collar jobs. We still needs those jobs for everyday life and the focus for those jobs are trade schools because sometimes college is not fit for all of us. Keeping those plumbing, contractor, and carpenter jobs for the overlooked percentage of people.
Bernie Sanders wanted free college tuition for all but Hillary Clinton has a more specific group. Which is only available to those who make $125,000 a year. That is too biased to propose because a dollar is different in all states and that will cause a debate for sure. No one else has a say in this? Someone who barely makes little over $125,000.
Hillary also cannot depend on states pulling their end of the bargain that she proposed because already some have not kept up to their expectations. Free college tuition catches the eye only.
Not everyone is focused on going to college to major in psychology 101, sociology, or communications. Many of us are not gifted with that "go by the book" intelligence. Some are gifted with hands on abilities. We're going for those blue collar jobs. We still needs those jobs for everyday life and the focus for those jobs are trade schools because sometimes college is not fit for all of us. Keeping those plumbing, contractor, and carpenter jobs for the overlooked percentage of people.
Bernie Sanders wanted free college tuition for all but Hillary Clinton has a more specific group. Which is only available to those who make $125,000 a year. That is too biased to propose because a dollar is different in all states and that will cause a debate for sure. No one else has a say in this? Someone who barely makes little over $125,000.
Hillary also cannot depend on states pulling their end of the bargain that she proposed because already some have not kept up to their expectations. Free college tuition catches the eye only.
2
If public college was free, they would see a dramatic inflow of students with higher GPAs and SAT scores. Many students and parents would decide that free is better than a slightly more prestigious private university and save the money for grad school. The higher performing students would push out the lower performing students. Based on current enrollment, students from more educated, affluent and/or 2 parent homes would have the advantage. In the end, "free" college would subsidize the elites and permanently end the college dream for many less affluent disadvantaged Americans. Just imagine a version of Stuyvesant High School in NYC as a future template for higher education where African Americans and Latinos each make up less than 3% of the student body.
2
The problem is that millions of people are borrowing billions of dollars for college and not being able to pay it back. And the loans have no accountability regarding credit worthiness or understanding of debt or course of study or any academic standard for getting the money. And the solution for this disaster is to make tuition free for everyone. Only the govt. could fix a terribly bungled program by making a worse program.
Here is a different idea. Let's fix the bigger mess of our High Schools so that students finish and are able to function as adults instead of taking a student loan just to have something to do. If students could get a practical education including technical training maybe they would finish high school instead of dropping out because they know they are not college material. This "college is the only path" method has ruined about 25% of our high school population.
Here is a different idea. Let's fix the bigger mess of our High Schools so that students finish and are able to function as adults instead of taking a student loan just to have something to do. If students could get a practical education including technical training maybe they would finish high school instead of dropping out because they know they are not college material. This "college is the only path" method has ruined about 25% of our high school population.
4
I agree that the free college idea was one of Bernie's worst. I live in Pennsylvania and also agree that it is not the Federal taxpayer's responsibility to make college affordable in this state. There is a silver lining to Pennsylvania's high tuition though. All 3 of my children attended private colleges. With the financial aid they received, it was far cheaper, and I am certain that they received a better education. The real cost of college is complicated indeed, and you are quite right in pointing out that it cannot be addressed simplistically.
3
This proposal makes far more sense, as long as it is restricted by covering only those students who have demonstrated abilities to write papers and for degree programs in which there is a demonstrated and sustainable demand for graduates.
The Brookings Institute Hoxby project, which detailed the macro misallocation of resources in it's High Achieving, Low Income Student
project targeted the single most promising area for attention in human capital development of our best and brightest.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Spring%202013/2013a_hoxby...
To often, the lack of adequate high school counseling for First Generation Student results in those who might become surgeons ending up driving cabs or waiting tables after ending up in for-profit colleges that do nothing to develop a student's creative thinking, analytical ability, nor his/her ability to communicate conclusions.
This change, to fully fund those low income students with substantial work habits for degree fields with substantial demand, is far more appropriate that the current poor public policy which indiscriminately funds student loans to students with no chance of repaying their loans to take degrees in fields for which there is no critical mass of demand for graduates.
We are currently replicating with this disastrous Department of Education
program, the exact same disastrous program of federally insured mortgage loans that nearly resulted in the downfall of the US economy in 2008.
The Brookings Institute Hoxby project, which detailed the macro misallocation of resources in it's High Achieving, Low Income Student
project targeted the single most promising area for attention in human capital development of our best and brightest.
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Spring%202013/2013a_hoxby...
To often, the lack of adequate high school counseling for First Generation Student results in those who might become surgeons ending up driving cabs or waiting tables after ending up in for-profit colleges that do nothing to develop a student's creative thinking, analytical ability, nor his/her ability to communicate conclusions.
This change, to fully fund those low income students with substantial work habits for degree fields with substantial demand, is far more appropriate that the current poor public policy which indiscriminately funds student loans to students with no chance of repaying their loans to take degrees in fields for which there is no critical mass of demand for graduates.
We are currently replicating with this disastrous Department of Education
program, the exact same disastrous program of federally insured mortgage loans that nearly resulted in the downfall of the US economy in 2008.
Germany is a better deal.
4
No such thing as free college. When the government says they are paying, it means the taxpayers are footing the bill.
5
I went to CCNY and got a degree in Chemical Engineering, but paid nothing for tuition until, in my last year I went over the normal credits allowed for a degree. During those college years I worked part-time, but I would never have been able to afford my education if it weren't for free tuition. Until I became a lawyer, I worked for 12 years as an engineer and produced my fair share of technical work.
This was once the norm for many public colleges in New York. Only cold and selfish creeps would deny a free public college education. And making it at the price of enormous debt profitable to the banks is just more Wall Street parasitism off the young.
A free college education is a right not a luxury. If you want to make it work there have always been ways to do that. (When you are against your fellow Americans having a full education you think up all sorts of excuses why it shouldn’t be free.) CCNY was considered the Harvard of the proletarian and its graduates earned many Nobel prizes. All this would never have been possible if tuition would have been charged.
The MSM with its for-profit orientation has tried to kill free college education for years. Which shows that in some ways education did fail – it didn’t humanize certain members of the media.
This was once the norm for many public colleges in New York. Only cold and selfish creeps would deny a free public college education. And making it at the price of enormous debt profitable to the banks is just more Wall Street parasitism off the young.
A free college education is a right not a luxury. If you want to make it work there have always been ways to do that. (When you are against your fellow Americans having a full education you think up all sorts of excuses why it shouldn’t be free.) CCNY was considered the Harvard of the proletarian and its graduates earned many Nobel prizes. All this would never have been possible if tuition would have been charged.
The MSM with its for-profit orientation has tried to kill free college education for years. Which shows that in some ways education did fail – it didn’t humanize certain members of the media.
9
To continue:
The lower performers also tend to be the poorer students. You are now responsible for cutting off their educational access to the middle class.
With the loss of need-based aid to students attending private universities, the only students who will be able to afford it are the brightest who get the most scholarships and the rich. Now, you have a new glass ceiling of educational attainment where the poor students are cut off from being able to attend the most elite universities.
So no, it is not cold and selfish to be against this disaster of a plan. It is foolish and thoughtless to be for it. How about instead of trying to cover cost with a government bandaid, we actually address the problem of college cost and affordability.
The lower performers also tend to be the poorer students. You are now responsible for cutting off their educational access to the middle class.
With the loss of need-based aid to students attending private universities, the only students who will be able to afford it are the brightest who get the most scholarships and the rich. Now, you have a new glass ceiling of educational attainment where the poor students are cut off from being able to attend the most elite universities.
So no, it is not cold and selfish to be against this disaster of a plan. It is foolish and thoughtless to be for it. How about instead of trying to cover cost with a government bandaid, we actually address the problem of college cost and affordability.
"we actually address the problem of college cost and affordability."
Zoobee: Free tuition is addressing the problem, without giving big profits to the banks. It worked very well when it was the norm in New York.
"where the poor students are cut off from being able to attend the most elite universities."
Why must they attend the most elite schools?
CCNY was not an "elite" school but it actually had a far better undergraduate school than Harvard, whose reputation was based on the achievements of its graduate school which admitted poor bright students.
No one has a right to go to a private university. CCNY's engineering school deservedly had an excellent reputation, and it prepared us to really do the job and then some.
It has always been a matter of adequate funding. The best teachers are interested in their students. Whenever there was enough money you could pay for the best faculty who were really interested in teaching and not how high the MSM ranked their school.
Zoobee: Free tuition is addressing the problem, without giving big profits to the banks. It worked very well when it was the norm in New York.
"where the poor students are cut off from being able to attend the most elite universities."
Why must they attend the most elite schools?
CCNY was not an "elite" school but it actually had a far better undergraduate school than Harvard, whose reputation was based on the achievements of its graduate school which admitted poor bright students.
No one has a right to go to a private university. CCNY's engineering school deservedly had an excellent reputation, and it prepared us to really do the job and then some.
It has always been a matter of adequate funding. The best teachers are interested in their students. Whenever there was enough money you could pay for the best faculty who were really interested in teaching and not how high the MSM ranked their school.
3
Although it rarely happens, this may be a case where a politician promises something in order to get elected. "Read my lips, no new taxes." We know how that worked out.
1
Each day I am constantly reminded , by members of my community, of how important college is to my future. To that I agree. I say that let the quality of each person's future be determined by their success and hard work and not by any other means. Why must an individual who lacks the motives to take full advantage of a institution have the privilege to attend to that institution, while a poor person be ostracized ? Therefore I think each person should be allowed the privilege of a free education.
A shrewd decision that we could make is to cut the military budget and investing it to the colleges. The US are spending ample money financing the military, money that could be spent on the productivity of future generation workers and thinkers, it is a compromise we must make. We could also increase tax on the purchasing of guns reducing gun ownership at the same time increasing guns control. We must prioritize education above all other sectors we spend in.
Some might be concerned that the policy would crowd out colleges as people who cannot afford tuition in the past can now. But I predict that if colleges become to overcrowded than they would decrease acceptance level, making college a place where applicants are not judged on their family's monetary values but rather on their achievements. I believe that this is the way colleges should pursue, and the free college policy is the path to take.
A shrewd decision that we could make is to cut the military budget and investing it to the colleges. The US are spending ample money financing the military, money that could be spent on the productivity of future generation workers and thinkers, it is a compromise we must make. We could also increase tax on the purchasing of guns reducing gun ownership at the same time increasing guns control. We must prioritize education above all other sectors we spend in.
Some might be concerned that the policy would crowd out colleges as people who cannot afford tuition in the past can now. But I predict that if colleges become to overcrowded than they would decrease acceptance level, making college a place where applicants are not judged on their family's monetary values but rather on their achievements. I believe that this is the way colleges should pursue, and the free college policy is the path to take.
3
Instead of making the cost $0 and having a $125k cliff, how about a sliding scale which also takes into account (a)whether the student succeeds or not (there is no point throwing money at unprepared students who wont finish) and (b)to what extent we (as a country) need particular majors? Heck, industries that are having a lot of trouble finding enough workers in a certain field would even be happy to kick in some money towards tuition for people that will major in what they need. This idea needs to be a lot more about public utility and a lot less about another middle-class entitlement without regard to talent, merit or societal need.
8
somehow the county found the money for the GI bill. Today Germanyfor instance, has free universities. We should do no less.
1
If the parent make $124,999 the kids get free tuition but if they make $125,000 they pay full price. This seems create a problem with parental desire to earn money. Maybe a better approach would be offer a federal voucher to needy children. The amount of the voucher could be calculated based on need, (hopefully on a sliding scale) and the cost of education in their region. The vouchers could be accepted an any qualifying institution. Free at the local community college or a discount at a more expensive school. Instead of re-thinking all these complex detail, the FAFSA could be used as a starting point.
2
Part One:
One can’t help but gravitate towards this article if he or she is a rising senior, like myself; especially since most of us already deem ourselves, virtually, “college students”. However, you, the readers - like myself - probably can’t help but speculate and construe this as yet another empty promise that is no more than just a stunt to amass in more votes. That this isn’t just another attempt to cater to us, the “harder to reach”, more “impressionable” demographic - the American youth?
Nevertheless, if I were to compare Hilary's New College Compact Act in comparison with Sander's College for All, from a more subjective standpoint, a cursory glance would show that words Bernie's campaign more appealing. The initial connotations of the words “free” beckons a sense of interest in us that we can’t neglect.
One can’t help but gravitate towards this article if he or she is a rising senior, like myself; especially since most of us already deem ourselves, virtually, “college students”. However, you, the readers - like myself - probably can’t help but speculate and construe this as yet another empty promise that is no more than just a stunt to amass in more votes. That this isn’t just another attempt to cater to us, the “harder to reach”, more “impressionable” demographic - the American youth?
Nevertheless, if I were to compare Hilary's New College Compact Act in comparison with Sander's College for All, from a more subjective standpoint, a cursory glance would show that words Bernie's campaign more appealing. The initial connotations of the words “free” beckons a sense of interest in us that we can’t neglect.
I agree with this criticism, but don't believe its critical at this stage. Education should remain primarily the responsibility of the states and the job of the federal government ought to be to encourage states to step up to their responsibility - even if it means states having to raise taxes.
Nevertheless, the important thing is that Ms. Clinton has announced the aspirational goal. In the end, Congress will write the law. And unless we get a Democratic Congress, it all academic anyway.
Nevertheless, the important thing is that Ms. Clinton has announced the aspirational goal. In the end, Congress will write the law. And unless we get a Democratic Congress, it all academic anyway.
1
WHY should education primarily remain the responsibility of the states? So people can go to the states that charge them the least and when they finish, promptly move to the states that pay the highest wages to them? In what way does the initial state get a return on its tax $? If you follow this logic, it seems like the correct ending to that sentence is "primarily the responsibility of the individual who is going to benefit their whole life from the education, secondly the country as a whole, which is going to have a more productive and educated citizenry, and thirdly the state, which will benefit to the extent the individual stays in that state."
4
You know -- you read this, and you think that must mean it is impossible to have tuition-free higher education -- nobody in the world does it. Except, of course, many wealthy democracies do do it. And all the arguments offered here apply equally as well to elementary and high school -- must be impossible to offer tuition free public elementary and high school, too, no? Yet even the US manages to do that.
Bottom line: when you have a third party payer, in education as in health care, you need to couple that with a system of price controls -- it is quite possible to do this, it can work pretty well when the political will is there to make it do so, and it makes for an enormously fairer and more humane society.
Bottom line: when you have a third party payer, in education as in health care, you need to couple that with a system of price controls -- it is quite possible to do this, it can work pretty well when the political will is there to make it do so, and it makes for an enormously fairer and more humane society.
5
All those countries that have free college: their best students come to the US for further education while very few of our students go there? Why is that?
3
US students pay tuition at foreign institutions and you can't get US Federal loans for a foreign education (for obvious reasons.) The only option is private loans, which have very high interest rates. I would imagine that foreign students, not having had to pay for an undergraduate education, would have more money to pay for grad school out of pocket.
3
Everybody cites the free university system in Germany. Is that what we want? That system looks nothing like ours. From what i have read, it is very stripped down. They don't have a cafeteria, parking lot or dorms. It is like community college. That is probably how they keep the cost down. What's more, only 30% of Germany goes to college, while it is over 40% in the US. I doubt that America wants its public university to suddenly look like community college. I am for making community college free. I am even for making public university free for the bottom half of the income earners. Thats about $50k. But making it free up to $125k is just ridiculous. Many of these people can afford college, and will not have to. That means the huge college income payoff will be funded by many people who will not receive that payoff. Unfair. For generations people have taken loans for college and frankly, that is not unfair. We need a plan for keeping the cost of college more reasonable, and this plan does nothing to achieve that--in fact it will very likely do what all similar govt plans do--raise the real cost of college--but disguise that cost through socializing it. Why subsidize people who are in the 84% income bracket in the richest country in the world? This is irresponsible. I like the top half subsidizing the lower half. Bt subsidizing up to eh 84%, is crazy. These people need to make responsible choices, not have a govt bail out.
The problem isn't sending people to college, it's sending the right people to the right college. Most for-profit colleges are a waste of time and money. Many who go to college in reality would be better served by attending trade school. Finally, giving people a free ride is just foolish; instead there should be more public funds devoted to Pell Grants for the truly needy and low/no interest Federal loans to the rest.
5
"The alternative is to distribute federal money to states on a formula basis, giving each the same subsidy per student.... It would require states that have historically been least willing to raise taxes and spend money on affordable higher education to suddenly do the most."
No, it wouldn't. It would just require those states to catch up to what other states have been doing for years.
The real issue is that due to differential Cost of Living, and differential mix of students (STEM graduates tend to be more expensive to educate than humanities majors), it does and should cost some universities more to educate an average student than others.
No, it wouldn't. It would just require those states to catch up to what other states have been doing for years.
The real issue is that due to differential Cost of Living, and differential mix of students (STEM graduates tend to be more expensive to educate than humanities majors), it does and should cost some universities more to educate an average student than others.
1
Hillary may be pandering to Bernie supporters, but the initial bringing in of millions of students was started by Bernie's pandering to them. He never had a realistic proposal other than: Europe does it; tax the rich for it. Vote for me and we'll make it happen. Hillary had to give him this or he would have ended up the Ted Cruz of the Democrats. He may still.
My husband teaches at a state University. Many of the kids entering don't have any kind of a background to succeed. Thus huge numbers of remedial courses, teaching what they should have gotten in junior and senior high. They were passed through high school and at some point will be passed through college. I went to a private college, and studied only the subjects I liked. (over 40 years ago; not proud of it) I was amazed to see my grades as all B's and C's on classes I never studied for or knew. They wanted to keep me. My guess is none of this would happen in Europe.
A good start is reducing interest on debt. But even that has its problems. How many kids would spend the money saved wisely and not take a couple of extra trips.
Neither Bernie nor Hillary could have done this unilaterally. At least Hillary will study the issue, and hopefully come up with some proposals that make sense.
My husband teaches at a state University. Many of the kids entering don't have any kind of a background to succeed. Thus huge numbers of remedial courses, teaching what they should have gotten in junior and senior high. They were passed through high school and at some point will be passed through college. I went to a private college, and studied only the subjects I liked. (over 40 years ago; not proud of it) I was amazed to see my grades as all B's and C's on classes I never studied for or knew. They wanted to keep me. My guess is none of this would happen in Europe.
A good start is reducing interest on debt. But even that has its problems. How many kids would spend the money saved wisely and not take a couple of extra trips.
Neither Bernie nor Hillary could have done this unilaterally. At least Hillary will study the issue, and hopefully come up with some proposals that make sense.
4
Like Obamacare, this plan would not address the root cause of the problem: costs. Thus,it would do great harm to taxpayers and the economy of our country.
6
Of course Kevin Carey hits this one right out of the park. The states have no money for education, already burdened with government mandated programs, crumbling infrastructures and complaining taxpayers. If Mrs. Clinton was trying to retain the Bernie supporters-"if it is for free it is for me" - she got some bad advice as she loses ground with people that understand that education costs money and this is just another empty campaign promise.
2
Two thoughts:
First, how about requiring that students "earn" their free college education with some form of national service before, during, or after getting their degrees? This would certainly promote some sense of individual investment and ownership, while expanding the life experiences (and helping to meet some practical national goals).
Second, once earned, set a standard tuition payment level from the feds. If a state does not want to support public higher ed so that tuition is covered by the feds, then so be it. With this national plan, the desire to attend an in-state institution will be less important. And after national service, the more experienced prospecgtive students will not default so readily to the "home" school.
First, how about requiring that students "earn" their free college education with some form of national service before, during, or after getting their degrees? This would certainly promote some sense of individual investment and ownership, while expanding the life experiences (and helping to meet some practical national goals).
Second, once earned, set a standard tuition payment level from the feds. If a state does not want to support public higher ed so that tuition is covered by the feds, then so be it. With this national plan, the desire to attend an in-state institution will be less important. And after national service, the more experienced prospecgtive students will not default so readily to the "home" school.
3
It seems to me that Even if it's not feasible to make four year public universities tuition free, Hillary Clinton's tuition program could be applied to community colleges. They already are far more cost conscious than the public universities. They would probably be much less likely to jack up their tuitions and enjoy a windfall. Plus it makes sense: we already have compulsory, free, K-12 education in this country. Why not add another two free, optional years?
4
Somehow I wonder if tuition keeps going up because society is not getting much of a return on their education investment. When a factory invests money in new machinery, it is hoped that the factory becomes more efficient, and the workers more productive. I taught at a small college, and I always thought education was about thirty percent productive. If you graduate one hundred students in a field, and only thirty find jobs in that field then is the college only thirty percent efficient? Many students think classes outside their majors are a waste of time, and do not apply themselves. So is much of the capital put into those courses wasted?
1
A commenter said, "College as the new high school, coming to you soon." That raises a question about why a college degree is necessary for jobs that high school graduates used to be able to get. For example, many law firm secretaries in the fifties were high school grads who were smart and well-educated by good high schools.
The requirement for a bachelor's degree has become, not evidence of ability, but a payment of often irrelevant dues.
The requirement for a bachelor's degree has become, not evidence of ability, but a payment of often irrelevant dues.
7
My high school had a strong vocational track. The girl - of course it was a girl - who had the highest GPA in the secretarial track got a job at 18 that paid her much more than a starting teacher with a college degree made.
All the girls who completed the sercretarial track got good jobs because they were competent. They learned a lot of skills that are not needed today - does anyone still learn shorthand? - but they had to do well in their English classes and prove they could write clearly. An understanding of bookkeeping was required too, so their math skills were good.
These young women were prepared for life in a way the girls who went off to college to get an Mrs. degree never were.
All the girls who completed the sercretarial track got good jobs because they were competent. They learned a lot of skills that are not needed today - does anyone still learn shorthand? - but they had to do well in their English classes and prove they could write clearly. An understanding of bookkeeping was required too, so their math skills were good.
These young women were prepared for life in a way the girls who went off to college to get an Mrs. degree never were.
The hardest working "girl" in the secretary/business track at my small town HS went to work at 18 for the best lawyer in the country. She watched and learned.
At 50 she owns five houses in the town and two dairy farms she picked up at tax auctions.
The revenue stream from the houses and farms make her one of the "town stalwarts" today.
Brains, opportunity and ambition can trump a run-of-the-mill college degree any day.
At 50 she owns five houses in the town and two dairy farms she picked up at tax auctions.
The revenue stream from the houses and farms make her one of the "town stalwarts" today.
Brains, opportunity and ambition can trump a run-of-the-mill college degree any day.
1
When there is any reason for the provider to benefit financially from a government assistance program, it will happen.
Medical costs have not gone down. Subsidies for agricultural programs are, at least in my mind, suspect.
And now university tuition?
Is there any analysis of how and why tuition rates have been riding so much over the past 30 years?
The notion that throwing more money at a problem to make it more affordable is laughable. in practice three things will happen: The wealthy will be OK. The poor will do OK. The ones in between will still be in the floor between two chairs.
Medical costs have not gone down. Subsidies for agricultural programs are, at least in my mind, suspect.
And now university tuition?
Is there any analysis of how and why tuition rates have been riding so much over the past 30 years?
The notion that throwing more money at a problem to make it more affordable is laughable. in practice three things will happen: The wealthy will be OK. The poor will do OK. The ones in between will still be in the floor between two chairs.
7
Nothing is free in life. Money does not grow on trees. The taxpayer will be responsible in the end for this experiment. I presume that if education is free there are no entrance requirements so basically everyone could go to college regardless of their chance of success. Human beings tend to not value those life benefits were they had no investment of effort and discipline.
Eventually, colleges and universities will function like our present day high schools were students are promoted year to year until they graduate yet they do not know how to read nor write and math is an obscure subject.
Welcome to another extension of entitlements at a time where the US is in deep debt and just servicing what we already owe is unreachable. Send mo' money.
Eventually, colleges and universities will function like our present day high schools were students are promoted year to year until they graduate yet they do not know how to read nor write and math is an obscure subject.
Welcome to another extension of entitlements at a time where the US is in deep debt and just servicing what we already owe is unreachable. Send mo' money.
8
European countries with 'free' college tuition, do not generally offer college to everyone. Children get sorted at around ten or eleven years of age into the university bound and the non-university bound. Not everywhere does this, and the Bologna Accords are changing things towards more American-style systems, but it is still not uncommon.
It's something that always seems to be left out of the discussion about free tuition with people demanding that the US be more like Denmark.
It's something that always seems to be left out of the discussion about free tuition with people demanding that the US be more like Denmark.
5
Do we want the dumb-dumbs going to college on the government's dime?
Let mom and dad pay for the dumb-bells to go to college and reserve public funds for kids who get decent scores on entrance exams.
Let mom and dad pay for the dumb-bells to go to college and reserve public funds for kids who get decent scores on entrance exams.
2
Bernie's plan - I echo the concerns of many educators who have less than motivated students who waste their and other folks time and money. Hillary would not come up with a unworkable plan like that and it will not pass the States who already have budgetary problems. We owe all this to the Don Quixote
I'm a Sanders supporter. I'll hold my nose and vote for Clinton. But her tuition proposal is pandering for votes and is fiscally and educationally irresponsible, for these reasons:
1) It ignores current Federal policy regarding student tuition financing - tax deductions, tax credits, PELL and other grant and loan programs. It ignores the fact that Federal guarantees for private bank loans, combined with legal prohibitions on students discharging student loan debt through bankruptcy, have made current public financing for college a zero-risk cash cow for banks. It does not distinguish among tuition, fees, and other costs.
2) It ignores the fact that both the the cost, quality, and state support of public higher education varies widely among institutions.
3) Very low tuition for students with parents making less than $50,000 per year makes sense. A threshold of $125,000 is too much, and provides aid to those who can afford to pay something. A sliding scale would make more sense.
4) It should cost all students something. Like banks and the public, students should have some skin in the game.
5) Too many students are unprepared for college-level work, and drop out. Aid should be conditional on performance.
6) Too many jobs which specify a college degree don't really require one. Employers use a degree as a proxy for applicants' ability to follow directions and persist at unpleasant tasks.
Look at Australian and European models for college tuition. Adapt them.
1) It ignores current Federal policy regarding student tuition financing - tax deductions, tax credits, PELL and other grant and loan programs. It ignores the fact that Federal guarantees for private bank loans, combined with legal prohibitions on students discharging student loan debt through bankruptcy, have made current public financing for college a zero-risk cash cow for banks. It does not distinguish among tuition, fees, and other costs.
2) It ignores the fact that both the the cost, quality, and state support of public higher education varies widely among institutions.
3) Very low tuition for students with parents making less than $50,000 per year makes sense. A threshold of $125,000 is too much, and provides aid to those who can afford to pay something. A sliding scale would make more sense.
4) It should cost all students something. Like banks and the public, students should have some skin in the game.
5) Too many students are unprepared for college-level work, and drop out. Aid should be conditional on performance.
6) Too many jobs which specify a college degree don't really require one. Employers use a degree as a proxy for applicants' ability to follow directions and persist at unpleasant tasks.
Look at Australian and European models for college tuition. Adapt them.
3
I taught for 35 years at Generic State University and had, over those three and a half decade, many hundreds of generic students. Some were bright and most were not. Some were ambitious and most were not. An indicator was that of an incoming freshman class about half were gone by the end of the second year. These students were from the top half of their classes when they graduated with the occasional exception of, say, someone in the bottom ten percent of his class (probably an athlete whose life was consumed by the demands of the athletic department). Free tuition is not the answer. A reasonable tuition is. Financial aid is a necessity to even the playing and studying field. But free? There are already too many people sitting in the back three rows who may complain about not being able to hear but won't move to the front. Electronic gadgetry is far more attractive to quite a few people. Why should classes be even more clogged with people who have no idea why they are in college except for beer and sex? They're even more attractive than electronic gadgetry. A reasonable tuition might help pay for putting more adjuncts on tenure track positions. But then free school would mean the need for more administrators. Always a down side.
18
College as the new high school, coming to you soon.
As Bill said, "everyone should go to college." But who will pay for all these folks who did not study well enough to qualify for a scholarship? What will their unique talent or contribution be? Will it not downgrade the value of a college degree if it is made so easy to get one?
As a different Willy said "Everyone is getting so smart, who will take out the garbage"?
As Bill said, "everyone should go to college." But who will pay for all these folks who did not study well enough to qualify for a scholarship? What will their unique talent or contribution be? Will it not downgrade the value of a college degree if it is made so easy to get one?
As a different Willy said "Everyone is getting so smart, who will take out the garbage"?
6
Even if the economics of this plan were to work out, I worry what it would do to the composition of students at state universities, especially the flagship schools. Free tuition would make state schools more appealing, thus raising the number of students applying. It's unlikely that states would be willing to massively increase the number of available slots for students because of cost, so the effect of this could be that state schools become harder to get into. We know that socioeconomic status is a good predictor of academic preparedness and (especially) test scores, which could mean that the average state university student in this system comes from a richer family than now.
Meanwhile, I doubt this plan would offer free tuition to foreign students, making them the only cash-cow option for state universities. There are plenty of rich foreigners who'd be happy to pay for an American university degree, especially if the school is now highly selective.
And where would that leave America's moderately-prepared middle and low-income students? They could go to community college or really pricey private options - made pricier because their former upper-middle-class students have bailed for state U and can no longer subsidize the poorer students.
Meanwhile, I doubt this plan would offer free tuition to foreign students, making them the only cash-cow option for state universities. There are plenty of rich foreigners who'd be happy to pay for an American university degree, especially if the school is now highly selective.
And where would that leave America's moderately-prepared middle and low-income students? They could go to community college or really pricey private options - made pricier because their former upper-middle-class students have bailed for state U and can no longer subsidize the poorer students.
4
"The move was widely seen as an appeal to supporters of her primary opponent Bernie Sanders, who made free college a pillar of his insurgent campaign."
Except that this plan has been on her website for many many months already with free community college and "debt free" public tuition at 4 year universities.
Except that this plan has been on her website for many many months already with free community college and "debt free" public tuition at 4 year universities.
6
A thought...Why not give each state the national average for in-state tuition but require any state which accepted the Federal funds to make the tuition charge to their students $0?
Under this arrangement, each state could choose whether it wanted to help its students, without any Federal mandates. The pressure on the states to come up with their share of the program would come from the students and their families. The Universities would also be pressured by their states to hold down their tuition charges.
Under this arrangement, each state could choose whether it wanted to help its students, without any Federal mandates. The pressure on the states to come up with their share of the program would come from the students and their families. The Universities would also be pressured by their states to hold down their tuition charges.
3
I find it hard to believe the Clinton administration and Congress wouldn't be able to come up with a viable model for reducing state tuition at public universities to $0. After all, the now famous UMASS study that stated conservative estimates for revenue ($300 billion) could be achieved through modest tax increases on financial markets ( 0.5 percent (50 basis points) for all stock transactions; 0.1 percent (10 basis points) for all bond transactions; and 0.005 percent (0.5 basis points) on the notional value of all derivative trades). So why couldn't the federal government simply create annual tuition caps in order for states to qualify for the federal aid?
5
"Any public university president with an ounce of sense would simply raise annual tuition by $5,000 or $10,000 or more, secure in the knowledge that Uncle Sam would foot the bill."
You DO know that's not how it works, right? Most tuition is set by the college, yes, but also by the local legislature and often has to be approved by the state legislature. Not to mention, a PUBLIC institution is by its very nature non-profit as well as government controlled. You can't just raise wages and build buildings willy-nilly because you suddenly found a way to milk a cash cow. There's a reason support would only be forthcoming to a public college - because it's much more easily controlled than that of a private one.
i would think someone writing about such policies would know that. But then again, perhaps you do.
You DO know that's not how it works, right? Most tuition is set by the college, yes, but also by the local legislature and often has to be approved by the state legislature. Not to mention, a PUBLIC institution is by its very nature non-profit as well as government controlled. You can't just raise wages and build buildings willy-nilly because you suddenly found a way to milk a cash cow. There's a reason support would only be forthcoming to a public college - because it's much more easily controlled than that of a private one.
i would think someone writing about such policies would know that. But then again, perhaps you do.
4
You would think that someone who writes a comment on how public college tuition works would know that our greatest public universities, such as the University of California, are independent institutions and set tuition as they see fit, with the legislature having no direct say. When the legislature under funds them, such universities raise tuition for all students and especially out-of-state students. Then they start admitting more and more out-of-state students and shutting the low-paying and fully subsidized in-state students out.
That is exactly what the University of California has been doing.
That is exactly what the University of California has been doing.
1
You hit the nail on the head. I am glad she took up this cause to keep Sanders supports, but yes, it will be difficult to employ because in this United States of America, capitalism is the defacto religion and the defacto political party. In other words, no matter what you do, capitalism wins. Marx was right. In capitalist nations, capitalism wins. Woe to the people. And yes, including an opt-out for states will lead to what happened when states opted out of Medicaid expansion - the people did not get what they needed. World War I destroyed the aristocracy but oligarchy is alive and well and living in the United States. Those who have will get more. Those who do not have will have a difficult time. I yearn for The Great Society of JFK's plans that LBJ put in place. Instead we have The Great Oligarchy.
3
Still have the Great Society's debts, of course, trillions.
1
If Trump had proposed a program with these kinds of challenges, I'd be worried. But Ms. Clinton knows how to pay attention to details and she will work this out. These are solvable problems.
3
I'd like to learn more about the reasons for skyrocketing college tuition costs which seems germane. If the costs are due to a legacy of overly generous and underfunded pension obligations to faculty and staff then foisting those costs onto today's students or taxpayers would seem particularly unfair to the majority of people working in industries that don't provide such benefits.
3
Most faculty subsidize college education by accepting salaries and benefits below their market value. Most parents insist on luxuries and frills, and government insists on paperwork that would sink a battle ship. If all college professors , particularly those in STEM areas and business schools went into the private sector they would easily displace people working in industry.
2
Where do you get this? "If the costs are due to a legacy of overly generous and underfunded pension obligations to faculty and staff then foisting those costs onto today's students or taxpayers would seem particularly unfair to the majority of people working in industries that don't provide such benefits."
There are a great many reasons for rising tuition, such as the extraordinary growth of administration on several levels (most of which is an unnecessary waste, but that is another story) and the need to build fancy dorms and student unions with climbing walls because young people are certainly not going to spend money on a school that puts its money into actual education, but "overly generous" pensions are not one of them.
Students are now "customers" and customers demand comfort and fun! fun! fun! The business model that is so prevalent in academe today (in part due to shrinking support from host states) is a very, very expensive model.
My school cannot afford to hire professors, but we are building a $50 million stadium....
There are a great many reasons for rising tuition, such as the extraordinary growth of administration on several levels (most of which is an unnecessary waste, but that is another story) and the need to build fancy dorms and student unions with climbing walls because young people are certainly not going to spend money on a school that puts its money into actual education, but "overly generous" pensions are not one of them.
Students are now "customers" and customers demand comfort and fun! fun! fun! The business model that is so prevalent in academe today (in part due to shrinking support from host states) is a very, very expensive model.
My school cannot afford to hire professors, but we are building a $50 million stadium....
4
Faculty at university are basically underpaid. Entry level salary for PhDs is in the $40, 000 to 60,000 range and that is after attending schools for at least 10 years. No one gets rich teaching. Most of the expenses go into infrastructure and support staff and of course, university administrators making six and seven figure salaries.
We can not forget the athletic departments with their over sized under performing budgets and large entertainment extravaganzas. Yes, make tuition free... we need another 500 member marching band.
We can not forget the athletic departments with their over sized under performing budgets and large entertainment extravaganzas. Yes, make tuition free... we need another 500 member marching band.
2
I'm not convinced that determining what price a family can pay without debt for college is any less complicated (or equitable) than the federal government subsidizing state tuition budgets. If Republican governors don't want to increase spending on public education in order to receive federal money to make college education available to it's residents, that's between them and that state's voters. It boils down to whether you believe every American deserves an education that prepares them for a changing economy, or not.
3
I completely agree with this article. Trying to adhere to Bernie's liberal wish list is veering the Democratic Party toward a disaster that none of us can afford. Bernie himself admitted he had no idea how to implement any of his fantastical ideas.
The innocent and/or ignorant who went along with him can either vote for Hillary or do a Nader and vote for so-called liberal Jill Stein, who lives in one of the fanciest places I've ever seen.
Just take a look at where pedal to the medal liberal Jill resides in Lexington, MA with her 2-physician family. Pleese! Just like Bernie, she plans on solving all of our societal problems while reflecting at near-to-her-home Walden's Pond. Tell her to move to an inner city and then I might begin to listen to her.
The innocent and/or ignorant who went along with him can either vote for Hillary or do a Nader and vote for so-called liberal Jill Stein, who lives in one of the fanciest places I've ever seen.
Just take a look at where pedal to the medal liberal Jill resides in Lexington, MA with her 2-physician family. Pleese! Just like Bernie, she plans on solving all of our societal problems while reflecting at near-to-her-home Walden's Pond. Tell her to move to an inner city and then I might begin to listen to her.
4
Maybe a more rational plan would be some sort of grant system that individuals could apply for in order to pay for college, technical/vocational training, or remedial education if they needed it.
Perhaps family income should be taken out of the equation altogether -- yes, some people would get money even though their families could afford to pay, but on the other hand it would help to get the votes needed (since those who can pay have a long history of voting against programs only for those who can't). Also, family dynamics can be complicated, and some people cannot or will not get funds from their families. No student should have to endure abuse to avoid a lifetime of debt.
In order to get the funds, the student would need to have been accepted to some sort of accredited program of study. Continuing funding would need to be contingent on success in the program. Everyone should be eligible, so those who have already gotten bachelor's degrees could use it to get graduate degrees, or job retraining. Part of the money for such a program could come from existing job training programs. There would need to be a lifetime cap in order to keep people from being eternal students, perhaps $50,000 per person -- enough to afford most State schools, vocational programs, or graduate degrees. There needs to be flexibility so individuals can pursue goals that are appropriate to their abilities and interests rather than one-size fits all.
Perhaps family income should be taken out of the equation altogether -- yes, some people would get money even though their families could afford to pay, but on the other hand it would help to get the votes needed (since those who can pay have a long history of voting against programs only for those who can't). Also, family dynamics can be complicated, and some people cannot or will not get funds from their families. No student should have to endure abuse to avoid a lifetime of debt.
In order to get the funds, the student would need to have been accepted to some sort of accredited program of study. Continuing funding would need to be contingent on success in the program. Everyone should be eligible, so those who have already gotten bachelor's degrees could use it to get graduate degrees, or job retraining. Part of the money for such a program could come from existing job training programs. There would need to be a lifetime cap in order to keep people from being eternal students, perhaps $50,000 per person -- enough to afford most State schools, vocational programs, or graduate degrees. There needs to be flexibility so individuals can pursue goals that are appropriate to their abilities and interests rather than one-size fits all.
4
She presented the plan as a policy marker. It’s not intended for serious scrutiny.
3
Absolutely. These campaign promises are not binding.
1
Let's talk about reducing the COST of college education rather than finding new ways of funding exorbanant tuition .. Over the past four decades, tuition increases has exceeded inflation by 400%. Where has this money gone? Not to faculty salaries- they have been flat for 40 years. - Munching at the feeding trough have been college administrators: more administrators than needed and ,at upper levels, paid far more than their" value added" roles to education justify. Administrative glut is a malignancy that needs to be excised. This will result in the lowering of education cost and student debt.Otherwise, the next bubble to pop will be college tuition funding.
19
What about constructing "federal" Universities all around the country that would be bare-bones amenities-wise, have no sports teams, but actually spend money directly on the education part of the equation. State and private schools would compete directly with these schools but would be nicer and might offer a better social experience. The schools would be 100% funded by tax dollars, including room and board. At first, due to supply and demand, they would be necessarily selective, but as capacity increased, available slots would as well. (But how to pay? I say reduce foreign military bases and get rid of the Dept of Homeland Security and the BATF, plus a financial transactions tax, and a property tax levied against all assets --with a few exemptions-- if your total accretion to wealth from all sources derived is above a certain threshold, say a million dollars.)
In the end, current universities would become just one educational option rather than the only choice for a four year degree or graduate degree. Many of the schools currently offering the least value would cease to exist. It would be a new interstate project to build and think of all the money that will get pumped back into the economy when no one is paying student loans.
In the end, current universities would become just one educational option rather than the only choice for a four year degree or graduate degree. Many of the schools currently offering the least value would cease to exist. It would be a new interstate project to build and think of all the money that will get pumped back into the economy when no one is paying student loans.
8
I hate these standard arguments: we can't shift to a system that treats all students fairly because that would necessarily be unfair to the states and their taxpayers. With somehow the idea that treating students fairly is less important than treating states fairly deeply embedded and unquestioned as an assumption. Why? Why should students with the misfortune of being born in Pennsylvania be punished because their parents and grandparents didn't want to invest in public education? Pretending that the only possible solutions are one's that are punitive in this way is absurd. Yes, the plan needs to be written with incentives for states to hold down costs and for some states to reduce them, but this should neither be the primary focus nor an insurmountable obstruction. Unless of course one is just looking around for excuses to say free college is impossible while trying to sound like that is reasonable.
4
Quality college education right now is like buying a house. An investment of a life time. The federal loan program for college education has been working reasonably well except that there are some for profit private Universities give out degrees that may not result in jobs. Hillary Clinton's free tuition plan may be something worth considering by congress if it does not pile up on the national debt. A better plan would be to have free tuition with additional scholarships and private industry funding.
3
Yes. Free college tuition should be available only after some kind of cost-controls are established.
5
Not to mention it would drive private education (including Harvard, Yale, and Stanford) out of business immediately. She is a dangerous woman.
When I was in grad school (paid for with a modest loan and part time jobs), one thing that struck me was how well undergrads were living. This was when loans were becoming big news. My tuition was +/- $8000 a year. Around campus, students mainly stayed in apartments that charged at the high side of rents for my city. They were decked out with pools, free tanning, fitness centers. The cars in campus lots were very nice, mainly newer, some BMW's, by contrast, my used Honda Civic was probably in the bottom 10% in terms of quality. Around spring break, I heard the plans for the trips- to the caribbean, europe, anywhere really. Students wore designer clothes and the women often carried high end designer purses. They all ate out. Few worked.
By contrast in my undergrad (just 8 years prior), we lived in crappy apartments where heat was the big amenity. Some people piled into houses maybe 8-8 in a 6 bedroom house. *IF* you had a car, it was a rust bucket. I had one of the nicest cars on campus, a 5 year old chevy. Most people had a side job. Spring break was within driving distance.
I read some of these stories of debts and I wonder how much of the loan paid for tuition and how much paid for the coach handbag, trip to europe and "not working". Unless you really have some trouble learning, working 15-20 hours a week should not be out of reach.
Anyhow, what exactly are we subsidizing? Education or a 4 to 5 year continuation of an upper middle class lifestyle when you have no income?
By contrast in my undergrad (just 8 years prior), we lived in crappy apartments where heat was the big amenity. Some people piled into houses maybe 8-8 in a 6 bedroom house. *IF* you had a car, it was a rust bucket. I had one of the nicest cars on campus, a 5 year old chevy. Most people had a side job. Spring break was within driving distance.
I read some of these stories of debts and I wonder how much of the loan paid for tuition and how much paid for the coach handbag, trip to europe and "not working". Unless you really have some trouble learning, working 15-20 hours a week should not be out of reach.
Anyhow, what exactly are we subsidizing? Education or a 4 to 5 year continuation of an upper middle class lifestyle when you have no income?
30
Concur. Appears to me that the college experience - once a place where you learned to manage your money and your priorities within the beneficial context of a peer group doing the same - has now morphed into just another typically American situation that's defined by everything except what really matters.
3
This is so true! I grew up next to Notre Dame and the cars were clunkers in the 80s and now they are BMW and Lexus. The undergrad women get their hair colored, eye brows waxed and nails done in professional salons. We were all broke in the late 80s early 90s. Big change.
Behold another curse of federalism...we could seek an equity-efficient, nationalized 'European' system...impasse, tho, is the very existence of States, long moribund, yet irremediable except in post-collapse scenarios...a planetary geno-informatic, brain-linked society might preserve the spirit & intent of the Fathers, but their institutions haven't a chance...vide Bostrom, Church, deGrey, Doudna, Libet, Koch, Venter & proceedings of Oxford Institute for Transhumanism.
Well too late for me... Would have been nice 15 years ago. No financial literacy training, banks wrote me a ton of loans I wish I never borrowed. But it's all my fault because I was told I needed to go to school to get ahead. Yay. But we can always afford endless war, right? Priorities!
8
Actually the carrot and stick approach can make such a plan possible.
The Federal Government can require schools submit to certain criteria in order to qualify for the program which would include an adequate State Subsidy of tuition. The lure of program participation would be a powerful incentive for both the schools and the state governments- opt out and lose many prospective students.
Financial incentives can be very powerful if written and enforced properly.
The Federal Government can require schools submit to certain criteria in order to qualify for the program which would include an adequate State Subsidy of tuition. The lure of program participation would be a powerful incentive for both the schools and the state governments- opt out and lose many prospective students.
Financial incentives can be very powerful if written and enforced properly.
7
Her goal all along has been, as she stated throughout the campaign, "debt free" college, not "free" college.
Yes, her original plan was better than the plan negotiated with Bernie due to the financing issues raised here involving the attitudes and budgets of different states, but I assume he insisted on assigning a number as to who could afford to pay.
In the end, the plan will have to be negotiated with many more people, including Senators from both North Carolina and Pennsylvania to pass the Congress, and will not work without cost constraints.
The goal is to stop allowing family finance struggles to keep talented children from getting an education and contributing to society.
For those who care about this issue, there clearly is a separate battle that has to be taken to the states, to electe state legislatures and Governors who value investments in education, from pre-K through college and trade school.
Broad investments in eg infrastructure, as proposed by Clinton, also will help by growing the economy and increasing revenue that can be used to invest in education, as happened in the 1990s when Clinton paid down the national debt and was blown by deficit exploding Republicans in the 2000s.
Yes, her original plan was better than the plan negotiated with Bernie due to the financing issues raised here involving the attitudes and budgets of different states, but I assume he insisted on assigning a number as to who could afford to pay.
In the end, the plan will have to be negotiated with many more people, including Senators from both North Carolina and Pennsylvania to pass the Congress, and will not work without cost constraints.
The goal is to stop allowing family finance struggles to keep talented children from getting an education and contributing to society.
For those who care about this issue, there clearly is a separate battle that has to be taken to the states, to electe state legislatures and Governors who value investments in education, from pre-K through college and trade school.
Broad investments in eg infrastructure, as proposed by Clinton, also will help by growing the economy and increasing revenue that can be used to invest in education, as happened in the 1990s when Clinton paid down the national debt and was blown by deficit exploding Republicans in the 2000s.
6
When Bernie was questioned by black leaders about the effect on free public college on historically black private colleges like Howard U, Wilberforce(most struggle mightily) he said "we'll just add you too". Of course so many small secular or Catholic colleges struggle (in Ct U Hart, Albertus, ..look at Dowling closing on LI)they would just get crushed). They are huge employers and educators and so many give tuition discounts to make them equivalent to public(I benefit with 2 girls in college). The Democratic mantra(public school good, private school bad) is so simplistic that it serves no purpose at all except to monopolize the votes of public educators(public school teaching is the largest employment category in the country now)
3
Even when I entered a world-class North Carolina public university in 1970, I was aware that I was the happy resident of a state that valued education for its youth and was committed to providing it. My tuition and room came to something like $500 per semester, if my memory serves, virtually all of that for my room. I could satisfy my needs for meals, books and other expenses on something like $500 per year.
My public-school education had already taught me about state legislative and, especially, gubernatorial leadership that created a system strongly focused on in-state students, while also working to attract the best and brightest faculty and researchers to its campuses. As I have aged and learned more about public colleges and universities in other states, I remain amazed at the model there.
The North Carolina system has difficulties, as do most states' universities. But even in the face of a hostile Republican legislature it has managed to continue to provide rarely paralleled academic excellence at costs that remain relatively affordable. Its flagship university, UNC-Chapel Hill, also instigated a national movement several years ago with the creation of a program allowing low-income students to graduate with no student debt.
While I am dismayed at my alma mater's treatment at the hands of the current legislature, I continue to be proud of its mission and North Carolinians' trust in it.
My public-school education had already taught me about state legislative and, especially, gubernatorial leadership that created a system strongly focused on in-state students, while also working to attract the best and brightest faculty and researchers to its campuses. As I have aged and learned more about public colleges and universities in other states, I remain amazed at the model there.
The North Carolina system has difficulties, as do most states' universities. But even in the face of a hostile Republican legislature it has managed to continue to provide rarely paralleled academic excellence at costs that remain relatively affordable. Its flagship university, UNC-Chapel Hill, also instigated a national movement several years ago with the creation of a program allowing low-income students to graduate with no student debt.
While I am dismayed at my alma mater's treatment at the hands of the current legislature, I continue to be proud of its mission and North Carolinians' trust in it.
7
But what about inflation? $500 in 1970 would be like $3000 today. Two semesters would be $6000, plus another $3000 in books and fees....$9000. That is not so far from the true cost in NC today as quoted here.
If they still charged only $500 a semester....it would be the equivalent in inflation of $84 per semester. That is hardly a realistic figure.
If they still charged only $500 a semester....it would be the equivalent in inflation of $84 per semester. That is hardly a realistic figure.
7
NC circa 1970 cannot be replicated, except on-line.
2
Be careful about comparing the US to Europe. I love Europe, but they are far from perfect when it comes to spending money. The US system of being accepted into college is very different. Let's take the bold leap and assume European countries can afford to pay. The standards for being accepted into university are much stricter than the US. If you don't have the grades, there are extra requirements before you can be admitted, and many people don't bother to go that extra step. At least in the US, students have a shot at redeeming themselves if they screw up in high school. This can usually be done by attending a community college for two years and then transferring. We would have to rework this whole system if we push to make college free. Not only that, but I'm not convinced that all European countries can afford this benefit given the recent economic woes. I suspect that we will see some European countries reforming their systems to be more like the US as they tighten their belts. It won't be without a fight, but it's already happening in other areas.
11
Most of what you wrote about European Universities is incorrect. It is easier to be accepted than in the US for the equivalent of "state schools". The "campuses" are far less lavish so cost far less. They can afford to pay. You are there for the education. Many live at home at low cost. Community college equivalents exist as do 2 or 3 year degrees ("associate degrees" stateside).
As with most things it can be done in the US as well if we decided to do it.
As with most things it can be done in the US as well if we decided to do it.
2
The HOPE Scholarships, named after Hope, Arkansas, were conceived in Hillary Clinton's office in Dallas during the McGovern Campaign, as well as Americrops. Together these two programs have sent millions of deserving Americans to college and to get vocational training for careers.
12
Including me! Obtained a master's degree in teaching free, although we did have to obtain a loan to pay the first year up front.
2
“They're all bought and paid for"our song is America's new National Anthem
Lobby for the people!!
Lobby for the people!!
1
Never worry. Clinton never had any intention of actually doing anything about this problem. This is just something to say to get people to vote for her.
16
Studies have consistently shown that college graduates earn more than non-graduates. Why should the government ever use tax revenues to subsidize higher earners?
4
Why should the government ever use tax revenues to subsidize higher earners?
Good question! After all, sixth grade graduates make more than kindergarten graduates. Let's cut those elementary school subsidies right now!
BTW, those same studies that show that the better educated make more money also show that the better educated pay more taxes. It's not a subsidy... It's actually what is known as an "investment."
Good question! After all, sixth grade graduates make more than kindergarten graduates. Let's cut those elementary school subsidies right now!
BTW, those same studies that show that the better educated make more money also show that the better educated pay more taxes. It's not a subsidy... It's actually what is known as an "investment."
9
Having a good portion of your own money (or your loans) invested in the pursuit of your professional aspirations, your goals, your dreams, is one of the best motivators for successful completion ever devised. Do it the old fashion way - "earn it". Or, if the government pays your way through college - after successful graduation, you now owe your Uncle Sam two years of national service. You are welcome.
4
Does it matter whether her plan is flawed or not? She'll never implement it anyhow.
7
The answer is simple, pass a standard funding of college education at a flat national rate,let the states figure out how important it is to be competitive in attracting jobs to their state. Let alumni & media pay for sports. The trend has been to build gargantuan universities with amenities not necessary for educational achievement, let the universities figure out how to pay for it but not on state & federal funding. With being in the era of connectivity, classes, room & board if not local should be covered. The incentivisation of universities creating locations for students to live at home,take online courses & a frugal but effective approach to education is best. Sports & extra curricular activities can be funded by other means. Universities get their monies, all the extras are taken on by individuals. It used to be that students were able to join clubs or associations that fortified their education at minimal costs. Now we find mega complexes on universities that are peripheral to the education goals & pumping up tuition costs. It is not very complex issue. There would also need to a rating for universities of graduating their students . With a free education comes responsibilities for all involved.
6
It seems to me the model (or one of the models) should be the City University of New York and its flagship The City College of New York which had no tuition; free, zero from its founding in 1847 until sometime in the 1970s. While tuition was free admission was not, it was highly selective as were the other senior components Brooklyn and Queens colleges. There was no means test, if you qualified for entry you paid nothing, rather like our public school system. I fail to understand how it is that we as a society could maintain a system like this for well over a century and that we can't afford it now. Are we a poorer society now that we were in 1850, 1870 , 1907 1932,1958 or pick a year?
22
I, too, am a product of the CUNY system - B.Sc, M.A, Ph.D, and I always praise it. I defend it against all the snobbiness and elitism of the Ivy Leagues. But things did start to change back in the 70s. The fact that admission was highly selective began to be considered problematic - too many high school graduates in New York City never had a chance, because their schools did not adequately prepare them for college. The changes started slowly, with programs that allowed entry to the top students in every high school (the 100 Scholars Program in around 1969), no matter how poor their skills, and to provide remedial classes for those who were not prepared for college-level work. I taught remedial math from about 1973-1978 at Brooklyn College to these students, some of whom needed to count on their fingers; these were high school graduates who ranked among the top in their high schools. Open Admissions and a large system of community colleges evolved during this time. It ended up that the City University had to bear the responsibility for what the Board of Education did not. CUNY could not afford this. It would be like declaring "open admissions" to Stuyvesant High School, which does not have a balanced population representation, ethnically or racially, and then demanding that they offer remedial classes to anyone who wants to go to Stuyvesant and allow them to go. It's not sustainable, even if there are certain equal opportunity issues that are also important to address.
11
^^^this is largely true across the country. I teach in a high needs urban district where teaching is low paid and otherwise unsupported by a tea party state government. We regularly graduate students with 6th grade or lower skills because there is a graduation percentage metric we have to meet, a dumbing down of what little remains of the common core recommendations, and a requirement to enroll as many undereducated graduates in open enrollment colleges as possible. Very few make it through the years of remedials they have to take - very few make it through a semester. Yet the colleges get their Pell grants, the banks and US gov collect on usurious student loans, and everyone except the students are served. This should make all of us sick.
7
Thoughts:
Most European countries pay most, if not all, of any student’s tuition, room/board at public universities. But then again, most European universities don’t have state subsidized multi-million sports facilities and coaches being paid in the millions, either…
Priorities.
The US remains the ONLY industrialized democracy in the world without either a national industrial, economic or education policy.
At one time California had the best public education system, kindergarten - post graduate school, in the world. With the election of Ronald Reagan the conservative, anti-intellectual era, later to go nationwide, began...
Most European countries pay most, if not all, of any student’s tuition, room/board at public universities. But then again, most European universities don’t have state subsidized multi-million sports facilities and coaches being paid in the millions, either…
Priorities.
The US remains the ONLY industrialized democracy in the world without either a national industrial, economic or education policy.
At one time California had the best public education system, kindergarten - post graduate school, in the world. With the election of Ronald Reagan the conservative, anti-intellectual era, later to go nationwide, began...
54
The main thing European universities do differently is limit acceptances and put the money saved into faculty and facilities. There are other differences, too many to go into here, but their system is unworkable in the US. It would require a vast national overhaul of secondary teaching in this country, and, as both the reaction to common core and continued state budget cuts to K-12 education show, none here is ready to do that.
6
The other thing Europe has is a strong apprentice program. Those who do not attend university can have their skills developed through employer programs. These are generally in areas where unions have been weakened so much in the US.
Any tuition-reduction approach needs to support such training also. This leads to the next question: why hasn't it happened already in the wake of NAFTA?
We get these politicians with their huge pie in the sky trade deals - and don't doubt Clinton would flop back on TPP support - and the part of the deal that supports the ones who can't fight back and can't pay to argue their interests simply disappears. If there had been a robust program to serve the Americans who lost jobs, and job prospects, as a result of NAFTA there would likely have been fewer trying to get into universities as a means of starting a career.
The overly simplistic offering by Clinton is not going to work - it needs to address the full situation.
Any tuition-reduction approach needs to support such training also. This leads to the next question: why hasn't it happened already in the wake of NAFTA?
We get these politicians with their huge pie in the sky trade deals - and don't doubt Clinton would flop back on TPP support - and the part of the deal that supports the ones who can't fight back and can't pay to argue their interests simply disappears. If there had been a robust program to serve the Americans who lost jobs, and job prospects, as a result of NAFTA there would likely have been fewer trying to get into universities as a means of starting a career.
The overly simplistic offering by Clinton is not going to work - it needs to address the full situation.
2
With every bold idea there are naysayers. We used to be a country of bold ideas and citizens who would say "We can do that!" Now we only hear we cannot do that. "Just say no" has become the cry of one of our political parties and has been sold to their members.
And, free tuition is not a bold idea. University tuition, in my day, used to be paid 80% by the state or federal government but now is 20%. We did it before and we can do it again.
And, free tuition is not a bold idea. University tuition, in my day, used to be paid 80% by the state or federal government but now is 20%. We did it before and we can do it again.
23
Once the floodgates of lending for student loans was opened, colleges saw a prime opportunity to raise tuition. After all, what parent would say no to a second mortgage to help their child get ahead? It's unconscionable that we as a society think it's OK for one to graduate from college with the equivalent of a mortgage on their back. You can exactly track the sharp increase in tuition with the volume and size of student loans.
I recently took a class at my local community college and was shocked by the lack of seriousness of most students in the class. Most, not all, felt they should be able to have notes, the textbook, even their cell phones available for use during the mid-term and final. The overcrowded class was less than half full by the end of the term. So many simply dropped out with the excuse "I wasn't going to pass it anyway." As a taxpayer, I was appalled at flippant, apathetic attitude of so many entitled young people. To really add insult to injury, the vast majority of those serious about their education were foreign students.
One idea is to create a reward system for students who take their education seriously. If one does well (doesn't drop the class, passes with a B or better), then forgive some portion of the loan - push students to excel, not party their prime years away. That's investment I'd gladly get behind.
I recently took a class at my local community college and was shocked by the lack of seriousness of most students in the class. Most, not all, felt they should be able to have notes, the textbook, even their cell phones available for use during the mid-term and final. The overcrowded class was less than half full by the end of the term. So many simply dropped out with the excuse "I wasn't going to pass it anyway." As a taxpayer, I was appalled at flippant, apathetic attitude of so many entitled young people. To really add insult to injury, the vast majority of those serious about their education were foreign students.
One idea is to create a reward system for students who take their education seriously. If one does well (doesn't drop the class, passes with a B or better), then forgive some portion of the loan - push students to excel, not party their prime years away. That's investment I'd gladly get behind.
73
Most young kids are not serious about education. That is very clear. As someone who taught as an adjunct at a large state university I was perplexed by what I saw. Everyone wants "free stuff" including tuition. Nothing is free and this generation seems to not understand that concept very well. I as a very hard working taxpayer am tired of handing over my hard earned money to people who have no concept on what it takes to earn a living. HRC is simply pandering to the masses to get votes. I will quit working when my taxes go up again to pay for others to waste it. I have saved enough.
26
(Not Mark) I have to disagree with the assessment of kids today. I know many that are hard working and very serious about their education. They are in many of the classes that my own kids have attended. They were in stem classes and engineering and economics and business at universities that have high standards for entry. Many of the kids that were not serious and were partying were in the liberal arts or education, where the standards are much lower. Before we pay for anything more on anything else let's do a little reforming and change the way the money is doled out. People think Europeans just write a blank check, but it is much harder to get into college there.
18
Mark, I assure you, liberal arts standards at a good university are not lower and engineering students party too. You are following a party line in your comment but clearly have no direct experience.
Tie tuition incentives to public service. Independent apparatus for administration of funds already exists. With some creative and thoughtful planning, students can be motivated by both the contribution to their communities and to their own bottom line.
1
It already is. TFA pays part of your student loans - this is a huge motivator for an underprepared 21-year old with no experience or, often, particular subject knowledge, to teach through that program, meaning once again poor students in bad schools get the lesser teachers. Americorps is similar. Social justice helps pay off your loans. What kind of a "better society" motivator is that?
2
More income redistribution, wonderful. I'm especially sympathetic since I've just given up the equivalent of a midlevel car payment every month for the past 13 years so my kids can go to the University of Florida without graduating with unmanageable debt. Vote Democrat? No thanks I and my spouse and I are both working and trying to hang on to being middle class, a task that is only hindered by the redistributionist policies of Hillary Clinton.
19
(Not Mark) Same here. Last one is in school now and taking summer classes in between working. It's not like we just had the money laying around.
4
The issue is how to ration access to higher education. Right now we ration access based on ability to pay, with little regard to ability to benefit from higher education. Developed countries ration access to higher education based on ability to benefit from higher education and demonstrated willingness to perform. Many college students spend more time drinking than studying, and they should not be in college. Making college free will create a tremendous demand for college degrees among people who have neither the interest in a college education, nor the ability to benefit society based on that education. We treat college like a luxury good rather than an investment in our future, that is a mistake.
31
Hillary Clinton's "plan" is really just a political smoke-and-mirrors exercise calculated to attract Bernie supporters. The article's author and the related comments have correctly pointed out numerous fatal flaws in and unintended consequences of the plan, not the least of which is its astronomical cost.
The Democrats want to make the US into even more of a socialist/welfare state, but they can't say who will pay for the escalating costs--certainly not the mounting numbers of illegal aliens who are allowed--in violation of the law--to remain in the country and generate billions of dollars in welfare and medical costs.
The Democrats want to make the US into even more of a socialist/welfare state, but they can't say who will pay for the escalating costs--certainly not the mounting numbers of illegal aliens who are allowed--in violation of the law--to remain in the country and generate billions of dollars in welfare and medical costs.
21
Imagine how much less welfare there would be if people made enough money.
7
My experience and observation is that if you aren't paying for something you don't really value it.
The day I was born, my parents put $100 in a "little Susie college fund" and I heard about it my whole life. When I went to college, I was very aware of how hard my parents had worked for 18 years so that I could attend the college of my choice. I took it seriously.
When I attended graduate school which I paid for myself without any financial aid, I wrote the biggest check I had ever written in my life! I also took that seriously.
Conversely, when I studied abroad at an elite European university, where the tuition was practically $0, I was disappointed in the attitudes of the students. They didn't study as diligently and stayed in college for years - it's free so why not? They definitely did not take it seriously. And this was at a school with a great reputation.
The day I was born, my parents put $100 in a "little Susie college fund" and I heard about it my whole life. When I went to college, I was very aware of how hard my parents had worked for 18 years so that I could attend the college of my choice. I took it seriously.
When I attended graduate school which I paid for myself without any financial aid, I wrote the biggest check I had ever written in my life! I also took that seriously.
Conversely, when I studied abroad at an elite European university, where the tuition was practically $0, I was disappointed in the attitudes of the students. They didn't study as diligently and stayed in college for years - it's free so why not? They definitely did not take it seriously. And this was at a school with a great reputation.
32
Sounds like a upper class lifestyle you have enjoyed. You should be thankful. Many don't have the advantage of parents paying their way. Of course the cost of education is rising at multiples of the inflation rate, so really your $100 bucks won't go anywhere anymore. If you put $100 a week into a fund for a kids entire life, it would get you about 2 years worth of college at this point. Maybe we should prioritize education over weapons, or tax breaks for the wealthy.....
6
What about the pathologically high-achieving students in the DC suburbs, all of whom attend public schools?
Susie, this is common in some European universities. In others you have to compete and keep a standard of "excellence”, to stay. Interestingly during the first 3 years all students take the same courses; subsequently, for next years of study, students decide for a trade school or a specific white collar or advanced career. This approach to college education could answer many questions. As I see, budget, tuition, and other costs will be less. A change in philosophy of education will be necessary, but not impossible
We don't need more young people going to college, we need fewer and those need to be far better qualified for college than many who attend today. Universities historically are for the intellectually elite. It is one way that European countries can offer free tuition - only a few very bright students actually go to university.
What we do need are more trade schools that begin in high school. Everyone is not intellectually gifted enough to go to college, and most jobs don't require a college degree. What young people do need is skills - marketable skills. I remember when I was in high school in the late 50's, there was a co-op program where students worked part time and attended school part time. It was mainly for secretarial skills, but that could be adapted to computer literacy. There were various trade schools right in my high school. We still need auto mechanics, electricians and plumbers and they need to be trained.
The college-for-all-and-free bandwagon may get votes, but it will be yet another total waste of money.
What we do need are more trade schools that begin in high school. Everyone is not intellectually gifted enough to go to college, and most jobs don't require a college degree. What young people do need is skills - marketable skills. I remember when I was in high school in the late 50's, there was a co-op program where students worked part time and attended school part time. It was mainly for secretarial skills, but that could be adapted to computer literacy. There were various trade schools right in my high school. We still need auto mechanics, electricians and plumbers and they need to be trained.
The college-for-all-and-free bandwagon may get votes, but it will be yet another total waste of money.
109
The contractors I use for household projects are dying for more skilled carpenters and other tradesmen. A co-worker was just telling me his home remodel is delayed for lack of someone to lay the flooring. The furnace contractor who was here two weeks ago is desperate for installers. Meanwhile how many able-bodied people are going into debt for "Sociology 101" or "Kinesiology" degrees?
53
I 100% agree. I'm all for your kids going to a trade school. I will happily hire your kid to lay my tile, fix my car or clean out my sewage pipe. But, MY kids are going to college...
6
Depends where you are. Where I am, there are lots of recent immigrants, some legal, some not, who are able and willing to do construction and remodeling work. Americans who want to be paid a living wage, have decent health insurance, and maybe a few benefits like a few vacation days cannot compete with people who don't demand any of those things. Sure, skilled tradespeople can make a lot of money but only if they own the business. To do that, having a background of studying business in college helps, so that you will know the basics of bookkeeping, HR, finance, etc. I agree that not everyone is suited to college-level academic work, but sending them all to trade school is not the answer either. We need to bring manufacturing back.
4
Thank you for pointing out the many problems with the plan. I strongly support efforts to make education more affordable and believe public investment must be increased. One problem the author did not point out is the effect the plan will have on tuition overall and on families with incomes over whatever limit is put in place. If a university increases the tuition amount to secure more funding from the government, that increase also raises the price for students who are not eligible for a subsidy placing an unfair burden on that student. While students coming from very low income families need support, the cost of a college education, even at a public university weighs heavily on many middle class families as well.
13
So if your parents make $125,000 or less you get to go U of [Your state] for free? What about the student whose parents make $126,000, they get no benefit? This is what drives me nuts about Federal programs... they use a one-size fits all formula that doesn't take into account the geographically and economical differences of the country. For example, if your parents lived in NYC and made $125,000 you are not living like "fat cats" ( cost of living in NY 131.6). However, a family in Idaho (cost of living 90.7) making $125,000 would be living in a McMansion! Yet, both students would go for free?
You can check out all 50 states cost of living number here: http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.html
Does this only cover your FIRST degree? What if I want to go back and get a second degree? Are there age limits to being a student? What if I, at 45 decided that I wanted to get another degree, do I get to go for free too?
I prefer to have federal aid linked to ability and desire via scholarships that are tied to academic achievement instead of creating a huge give-away with no strings and bright-line income test.
You can check out all 50 states cost of living number here: http://www.top50states.com/cost-of-living-by-state.html
Does this only cover your FIRST degree? What if I want to go back and get a second degree? Are there age limits to being a student? What if I, at 45 decided that I wanted to get another degree, do I get to go for free too?
I prefer to have federal aid linked to ability and desire via scholarships that are tied to academic achievement instead of creating a huge give-away with no strings and bright-line income test.
56
You make some excellent points, especially about the different costs of living creating a huge income differential. I agree that this is a problem with programs that want to set a certain number and apply it nationwide. I think the most logical way to do it would be a grant that students would have to apply for (like TAP or Pell), which could be awarded based on a formula that takes local cost of living into account, and should also increase as the student continues through school.
That should also be combined with some sort of entrance exam, because when people who barely know how to read go to college, the money is wasted on endless remedial classes. Most will flunk out. Remedial classes could be subsidized by paying schools a flat fee meant to cover the cost of the instructor and course materials, and students should not get multiple attempts at passing the same class.
There is simply no way to make tuition completely free for everybody, but one way to address the issue the article discusses (unequal State funding) would be to offer block grants that the states could get only to the extent that they matched the funds. So, North Carolina would get $8,894 per student and Pennsylvania would get $3,758. That would encourage States to put more of their money up, or else they would hear about it from their constituents.
That should also be combined with some sort of entrance exam, because when people who barely know how to read go to college, the money is wasted on endless remedial classes. Most will flunk out. Remedial classes could be subsidized by paying schools a flat fee meant to cover the cost of the instructor and course materials, and students should not get multiple attempts at passing the same class.
There is simply no way to make tuition completely free for everybody, but one way to address the issue the article discusses (unequal State funding) would be to offer block grants that the states could get only to the extent that they matched the funds. So, North Carolina would get $8,894 per student and Pennsylvania would get $3,758. That would encourage States to put more of their money up, or else they would hear about it from their constituents.
2
I assume, as with marginal tax rates, that the plan is free for the first $125K then has you contribute to your cost of education as income resisters above that
1
There needs to be some federal intervention, but 125k is problematic with no COL taken into consideration (she recognized the importance of COL in the minimum wage debate). It also will create perverse incentives in families. With 2 kids in college, it might make sense for one spouse to quit a job to qualify.
This whole idea is pandering to the Bernie supporters. It's really up to the states to go back to subsidizing education at their public schools. If the Federal Government wants to give some block grants to states, then fine, but let the citizens of these states decide how much they want to fund their schools.
The Federal government already has the Pell grant program that gives out money, based on financial need, up to $5775. This could be expanded to give grants to more people.
About half of the student debt problem is due to corrupt for-profit vocational schools. Since the Corinthian scandal the government is already getting out of the business of supporting these flimsy "educational" institutions.
Many students can already afford to go to college and, at the right college, it is reasonable and a good investment to take out a manageable loan for an education.
Finally, there are a lot of students simply making stupid calculations about what they can afford and about what they are going to study. Maybe these potential students need some guidance about how to go about attending college. Fine. But mostly this is a personal decision and the responsibility of the students not to make stupid choices.
We place way too much emphasis on the message that everyone needs to go to college. So many jobs don't need a 4+ year education to be successful.
The Federal government already has the Pell grant program that gives out money, based on financial need, up to $5775. This could be expanded to give grants to more people.
About half of the student debt problem is due to corrupt for-profit vocational schools. Since the Corinthian scandal the government is already getting out of the business of supporting these flimsy "educational" institutions.
Many students can already afford to go to college and, at the right college, it is reasonable and a good investment to take out a manageable loan for an education.
Finally, there are a lot of students simply making stupid calculations about what they can afford and about what they are going to study. Maybe these potential students need some guidance about how to go about attending college. Fine. But mostly this is a personal decision and the responsibility of the students not to make stupid choices.
We place way too much emphasis on the message that everyone needs to go to college. So many jobs don't need a 4+ year education to be successful.
16
(Not Mark) A lot of student debt is from public colleges. Many students sign up and then drop out without a degree. The whole 'for profit' college thing was just smoke and mirrors.
3
Financing of this plan would always drive up costs and taxes in a way that is almost insurmountable.
Added to this is the benefit: I taught at one of the "Public Ivies" where admission was highly selective. A policy like this would benefit students from well-to-do backgrounds (and I'm a little surprised that the level for subsidy extends to a family income of 125K—pretty high by my reckoning). So this program would subsidize, at least at some "flagship universities" the upper-middle of the middle class.
Then there's the fact that Clinton can't dictate what state legislatures do (they would withdraw student support under this kind of scheme), nor does her plan account for the fact that some of the "Public Ivies" are basically private universities in all but name. Michigan only about 8% of its budget from the state; North Carolina about 25%.
All-in-all I have written previously that this Sanders idea was fiscally and financially unsound, and it becomes no more sound in the hands of Clinton.
Added to this is the benefit: I taught at one of the "Public Ivies" where admission was highly selective. A policy like this would benefit students from well-to-do backgrounds (and I'm a little surprised that the level for subsidy extends to a family income of 125K—pretty high by my reckoning). So this program would subsidize, at least at some "flagship universities" the upper-middle of the middle class.
Then there's the fact that Clinton can't dictate what state legislatures do (they would withdraw student support under this kind of scheme), nor does her plan account for the fact that some of the "Public Ivies" are basically private universities in all but name. Michigan only about 8% of its budget from the state; North Carolina about 25%.
All-in-all I have written previously that this Sanders idea was fiscally and financially unsound, and it becomes no more sound in the hands of Clinton.
9
Maybe 125K is high in your area, but in high cost of living places like New York, it's not. That's barely enough household income to own a house on Long Island these days.
6
Universal college higher education is eminently affordable. It's logical, which is why most other industrialized countries have it - much like universal health care. Not only does it eliminate the debt load of students (which is dragging down the economy at its current $1 trillion), it creates expanded opportunities for those students to study where they want, rather than at the only place they can afford. Like universal single-payer health care, it would allow the government to set costs and control cost growth since they would become the universal buyer.
It's also feasible economically. There are roughly 20 million college students in the United States; even if we assume an upper-end public school tuition of $20,000 a year, that's only $400 billion - far less than the $600 billion we spend annually on the military. We could likely drive that price far lower by slashing administrators plus ending the construction of luxury complexes for students. In Germany, where free tuition is the norm, students don't get rock climbing gyms or million-dollar sports stadiums. Universities are set up to have places to live and places to teach.
The question is, if we have the political will to institute massive increases in military spending and tax writeoffs to corporations, why not a logical plan to support education through the college level, which would reduce debt and probably increase innovation?
It's also feasible economically. There are roughly 20 million college students in the United States; even if we assume an upper-end public school tuition of $20,000 a year, that's only $400 billion - far less than the $600 billion we spend annually on the military. We could likely drive that price far lower by slashing administrators plus ending the construction of luxury complexes for students. In Germany, where free tuition is the norm, students don't get rock climbing gyms or million-dollar sports stadiums. Universities are set up to have places to live and places to teach.
The question is, if we have the political will to institute massive increases in military spending and tax writeoffs to corporations, why not a logical plan to support education through the college level, which would reduce debt and probably increase innovation?
35
Thank you Kevin Carey for pointing out this uuuuge problem. It is insurmountable.
It would not be rocket science to figure out a way to equalize each state's contribution to education. For example, make each state's contribution based on the total income of the state's population.
It would not be rocket science to figure out a way to equalize each state's contribution to education. For example, make each state's contribution based on the total income of the state's population.
2
Not to worry. These pipe dream lures for the unwary during campaigns mostly evaporate in the hot, sunny glare of governance. Remember Obama's promises to initiate single payer and empty Guantanamo from the 2008 campaign's giddiness?
27
The problem with this plan is the same problem it was when Sanders promoted it - while public colleges aren't cheap, the people who are really burdened with heavy debt are students at private colleges.
So there are two possible outcomes if Clinton's plan is adopted - the first is that not a whole lot changes because young people who are currently choosing to go to private colleges are doing so despite knowing that public colleges are cheaper, and will continue to do so.
The second is that a good many students who would have otherwise gone to private college flock to public colleges, and either those public colleges would have to start turning away a record number of students, or they would face classes so large that it would overwhelm their resources.
European countries with free higher education manage it because their high schools are much better, and because their college attendance rates are far lower than ours - they don't tout college as the only way to get ahead in life.
So there are two possible outcomes if Clinton's plan is adopted - the first is that not a whole lot changes because young people who are currently choosing to go to private colleges are doing so despite knowing that public colleges are cheaper, and will continue to do so.
The second is that a good many students who would have otherwise gone to private college flock to public colleges, and either those public colleges would have to start turning away a record number of students, or they would face classes so large that it would overwhelm their resources.
European countries with free higher education manage it because their high schools are much better, and because their college attendance rates are far lower than ours - they don't tout college as the only way to get ahead in life.
43
Thank you Kevin Carey! This "plan" is nothing more than an attempt to buy off both Bernie's younger supporters and his middle class backers. It would be phenomenally expensive and complex to try to administer. Its a wholesale invitation to State reductions of support and unrestrained tuition hikes. Its a pig in a poke if there ever was one. Total pander. Garbage.
15
The easiest way to drive up the cost of something? Make someone else pay for it. Look at healthcare. If we ALL had to pay for it, out of our own pockets, guess what? The price would come down. Has the price of plastic surgery gone up like the cost of everything else in healthcare? Of course not, because WE have to pay for it. Get Govt out of paying for college and the price will deflate dramatically.
22
Why is obvious solution ignored? Each qualifying student should get the SAME government grant which can only be spent at a university that meets all standards. Universities would then compete for those funds, perhaps by trimming spending on luxury dorms, fancy student centers and overstaffed administrations not involved with teaching! North Carolina would not be penalized for its investment in education while Pennsylvania would have have to make hard choices to get those education dollars.
29
Such a simple, eminently workable plan, which would pave the way for the excellent free colleges that America did indeed have for many years, is obviously unworkable because making public college free is "promising not just a few stars here and there, but the moon and a good part of the sun..."
I know because the the Times told me so.
I know because the the Times told me so.
1
Of course, much larger figures did not deter generating money for the banks during the recession, nor does it deter money to military contractors and the Pentagon for questionable wars.
12
Instead of looking at the issue through the lens of tuition and class standing, a policy-maker should reference cost-effectiveness. As of today, many people start college and do not finish, one major reason being that their K-12 education did not prepare them for college. As a tax payer, I do not want to be charged for more students to take a few classes and then, withdraw from college without completing a program. Until the time we can ensure that pre-college education solidly prepares students for college, we cannot dream of expanding federally-funded tuition. If it is decided to risk an obscene waste of money anyway, we should at least require that college-credit (i.e., degree-level) math and science classes be taken within the first semester, and based on a B or better, the student may take another semester of academic classes toward a specific degree program. I want my tax money to be invested, not merely spent.
31
The details of how to implement a system of underwriting college tuition are admittedly tricky. But if we don't commit ourselves to solving this problem we will be condemning our children to debt for the rest of their lives. Students today are choosing majors simply based on future pay prospects that would enable them to pay their loans.
As this trend continues we will loose our most talented from professions like teaching, social work and a host of social service professions. Fewer will choose the arts, where employment and lucrative pay has always been illusive.
A debt burdened society is one whose economic growth is stagnant because all their productive capacity simply cycles back to the banks who now have a worldwide market and a host of financial schemes from which to pursue investment opportunities. In other words, student loan debt payments never returns as Main Street investments.
Reducing college costs is a challenge, but one that creative minds can solve. Let's not be so quick to toss the idea aside, lest in the process we toss aside the educational and creative potential of the next generation.
As this trend continues we will loose our most talented from professions like teaching, social work and a host of social service professions. Fewer will choose the arts, where employment and lucrative pay has always been illusive.
A debt burdened society is one whose economic growth is stagnant because all their productive capacity simply cycles back to the banks who now have a worldwide market and a host of financial schemes from which to pursue investment opportunities. In other words, student loan debt payments never returns as Main Street investments.
Reducing college costs is a challenge, but one that creative minds can solve. Let's not be so quick to toss the idea aside, lest in the process we toss aside the educational and creative potential of the next generation.
13
Apparently the essay was too long for you. The antepenultimate sentence says Clinton's original plan, to which she should return, would provide grants "to colleges that committed to reducing tuition to an amount students and families could pay without debt." See? The problem you're talking about, student debt (and not just crushing debt, but apparently any debt at all), is eliminated.
1
When I went to college in the 1970's, a Basic Education Opportunity Grant paid for my education. Thankfully I graduated before Reagan was elected. He cut them, of course.
Because I went to college I was able to get a better job. The amount I pay in taxes in a single year is more than what the government paid for my entire education. For those who only care about the market, this was a good return on investment.
I am reminded of a bumper sticker: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." There is a reason Trump says "I love the poorly educated."
Education is far less expensive than wars and military spending but I almost never see any commentary in the media about that. It is too profitable for powerful interests.
Because I went to college I was able to get a better job. The amount I pay in taxes in a single year is more than what the government paid for my entire education. For those who only care about the market, this was a good return on investment.
I am reminded of a bumper sticker: "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance." There is a reason Trump says "I love the poorly educated."
Education is far less expensive than wars and military spending but I almost never see any commentary in the media about that. It is too profitable for powerful interests.
91
You miss the obvious point - if it was a good return in investment for the government that it was also a good ROI for you to take out a modest loan and REPAY it.
Why should the taxpayers - many oh whom will never go to college - some of whom will mow the lawns at these colleges and clean out the garbage cans subsidize middle class kids for 5 years of fun and frolic.
Why should the taxpayers - many oh whom will never go to college - some of whom will mow the lawns at these colleges and clean out the garbage cans subsidize middle class kids for 5 years of fun and frolic.
5
Good to hear Trump loves the poorly educated, for no one else seems to care about them.
I have two other objections to the $125,000. plan. One is, living in New York City or San Francisco on that amount vs. living in a more affordable place would have to be adjusted for cost of living. The other is that families often have more than one child. Someone earning $126,000 with three children would be in a different place financially from someone with only one child. Perhaps Secretary Clinton has built provisions for these two issues into the plan, but if so, I haven't heard it.
18
Free college tuition is a bad idea.
But making college affordable is.
State universities should strive to make their tuition and basic costs equal to the sum of minimum wage times 20 hours per week during the school year plus 40 hours times minimum wage during the summer.
This ensures reasonable affordability for all.
But making college affordable is.
State universities should strive to make their tuition and basic costs equal to the sum of minimum wage times 20 hours per week during the school year plus 40 hours times minimum wage during the summer.
This ensures reasonable affordability for all.
14
And cars should cost no more than $5k that way they would be more affordable.
When you say "strive to make...." it sounds like you mean the university should be able to be run on this level of tuition.
A college cannot be run at this level of funding.
When you say "strive to make...." it sounds like you mean the university should be able to be run on this level of tuition.
A college cannot be run at this level of funding.
5
Fantastic idea.
1
A college that pays it's CEO like a movie star and is administration heavy and puts most of it's income into athletics cannot run on tuition. That's because it isn't being run as an educational institution it's being looted. The result is fewer tenured professors, teaching done by unpaid grad students and cheap labor adjuncts, and science grants being raided to the tune of a minimum of 50% for "expenses" (at one point Stanford was taking almost 75% of each grant). Education is a Public Good. A good education is not about getting a big salary job - that is just the way it's been "monetized" for sale. it's about informed citizens that value knowledge and vote thoughtfully. We need them more than ever.
8
Hillary, a conservatives, is a state's right advocate, states rights being the setpoint for conservatives who want state legislatures to be able to block liberal or progressive policies.
Which makes sense because Hillary's basically a moderate Republican, not interested in any of the reforms on from party liberals. She needs our votes & will say anything but she's not going to push for universal health care & she's not going to make college more affordable except tinker w/ student loan interest rates.
If she was serious about this, the place to start is bankruptcy reform making student loans dischargeable. To leave student loans nondischargeable in bankruptcy means those currently holding loans who lose their jobs or have medical crises may be ruined.
Hillary & Bill fought hard for 'bankruptcy reform' making student loans nondischargeable - a gift to their Wall Street buddies, punishing the middle & working classes.
Everything other kind of debt - credit card debt/business debt/ medical debt/gambling debt - can be discharged in bankruptcy. Only student loans are nondischargeable.
Hillary never addresses this because she'll never act against Wall Street interests. Don't be conned.