It is clear what Pete's strategy is, stealing the thunder of progressives, on issues which he is barely familiar with, hiring some pseudo policy wonks to write 5 page position papers. throwing out numbers without scrutiny, and making promises that do not match his revenue projections. In fact, he is practicing what he criticizes of candidates like Sanders. But with a big difference. Sanders is getting necessary revenue from the 1% and his committed to his programs. The source of Pete's revenues are opaque, and Pete has no history of commitment to anything. So Pete whittles down the proposals of Sanders and Warren, and adopts the moderate posture, believing that this his only pathway to what he really cares about, being President
Free college is a principle, not only enabling an education to become financially sustaining but also to develop as a human being, Even an electrician will benefit from liberal arts courses,
Both Sanders and Warren propose taxes on the wealthy to pay for free public tuition. Whatever the children of the affluent will gain from free public tuition will be more than countered by what they will pay for in taxes.
Free public tuition can also get rid the system of some unnecessary expenses, like new sports arenas, or 7 figure salaries for administrators, or high 6 figure salaries for undeserving professors.
7
I'm beginning to really grow tired of Buttigeig.
5
Not everyone is equal and life ain’t fair..... get used to it
2
If the millionaires pay taxes to provide free college to lower income folks, why shouldn’t they benefit from the provision as well? Besides, how do you justify the limit? Under $150k you are in, over 150k you are out. In addition, a limit creates additional administrative costs, thus more inefficiencies.
Mayor Pete is posturing as a fiscal conservative with no substance.
5
How can anyone embrace Socialism in this country? Sad...
I agree with Buttigieg.
It's like these multi millionaires still taking Social Security checks depleting the reserves for those coming of "age" who need it.
1
Maybe instead of free college or an income limit, the first thing should be to bring down the tuition fees. 50K a year is ridiculous, dont you think. I call it education discrimination. Only the rich can afford it without jeopardizing their future.
3
I can barely support myself on $100k as a single person living in NYC. I don't know why he thinks a FAMILY making $150 would be able to afford college! Ridiculous. Free for all.
6
This is, as always when Democrats are involved, about socialism: those who pay, can, but have to pay twice because they also pay for those who are poorer. In other words, its the typical unfairness of Socialism as it exists in the USA.
If public money pays for a college, it should either be free to ALL, or free to say the top 50% in grades (scaled, of course, so "Womyn's Studies" grades are not counted the same as Computer Science grades), with a graded cost outside that.
I am so angry about Warren's plan to cancel student debt! I'm a lifelong democrat, a woman engineer who chose it in school so I could have a decent income, who also married an engineer, and we are now paying out of pocket for our two son's tuition. Will we be refunded, even though my husband and I have diminished our retirement savings to pay out of pocket for our son's tuition? No! Yet kids that have loaded up on student debt for programs they should never have undertaken because of the lack of return on investment, they will be underwritten by my tax dollars in the future? I guess my sons, who both study now or will be studying engineering so that they can nail a job, they should instead study English, at the same they load up on student debt which will be cancelled by the taxpayer? This is such gross and unfair pandering, and poor use of taxpayer funds, proposed by Warren, who purports to be so interested in equity.
7
City University of New York's senior and community colleges were free for decades; the university was founded in the 19th century as the Free Academy. I attended Brooklyn College from September 1969 to June 1973 and paid nothing more than a $53 general fee each fall and spring semester and a $24 general fee each summer semester.
I was from a relatively wealthy white family (swimming pool in backyard, Caribbean vacations in winter, my own new car my parents bought me) and I paid almost nothing along with my classmates and friends who lived in NYCHA housing projects and those who needed to work to support themselves and their families. I got to know lots of people from different backgrounds as well as from different races, nationalities, etc.
And once I graduated, I worked in a private college with a majority-black student body and later at numerous colleges, public and private, including part-time teaching at eight CUNY colleges and similar, no-longer-free, colleges and universities in four states.
Only in the 1980s under Reagan, when CUNY was no longer free (just as the majority of its students became nonwhite), was higher education or vocational training considered an individual good, benefiting only the person who graduated.
Higher education is actually a societal good -- something we knew back in our day.
4
In my experience, many people don't value things they receive for free. I knew many people who went to CUNY for free way back when who spent years just to get a BA because they failed classes because they didn't have any financial stakes in their education. CUNY--with open enrollment and free tuition in the 1970's--was a disaster. I am concerned with paying for this and more importantly, what will the limit be? If it takes someone seven or eight years to get a BS or BA. Would someone from NY be able to go to a public university in another state for free? Will undocumented immigrants be able to go for free? What about foreign students? What if they decide to stay illegally? And the assumption of AOC that the wealthy only attend private schools is also false and ridiculous.
2
The students must have financial skin invested in the game or else drop-out rates will be astronomical. Feds should offer interest-free loans which become interest-bearing once income tax returns show they earn more than median wages for their zip codes.
2
for such a smart guy, Pete is either willfully ignorant or simply being disingenuous and patronizing. First the difference isn cost by including children of millionaires and billionaires is really miniscule and easily made up by taxing their parents only for another percent or two.
But even more important is the basic philosophy and political vulnerability of his program. When FDR instituted Social Security, many of his advisers urged that it should be means tested. But in his great wisdom, FDR realized that any program that is means tested automatically becomes labeled as a form of "government charity" or giveaway to the undeserving or, in newspeak, an wasteful "entitlement" subject to unending attack by the reactionary establishment. Indeed , those conservatives who regularly attack social security today would love it to be means test so they could more easily destroy it. But when the program applies equally to all, regardless of income, it becomes more of a right and much more defensible from conservative attack.
5
guess what? rich kids don’t go to state schools.
3
"but since it’s already accessible to the children of wealthy Americans, why should they get free tuition?"
Many of Buttigieg's remarks on the surface seem reasonable but upon closer examination are disingenuous. Very few if any wealthy Americans plan on sending their children to community or public colleges.
This is one of many sound bites from him and I must say he is quite a shrewd politician for someone his age.
2
How much is too much?
Should we give everyone 100,000$ and have them
Skip college? It may be more cost effective.
Should we give everyone in the world who has ever been oppressed 100k?
Should we buy homes for everyone?
At what point does self sufficiency kick in..... seriously ...
Means testing is the Republican way of killing off programs that help Americans.
The USA must provide a set of universal benefits, such as education and healthcare, that benefits all Americans. A stronger America requires healthy and smart people.
Instead of the word 'free', we should adopt some sort of phrase like 'universal American benefits'.
4
There’s a big difference between an income of $150,000 and “millionaires”.
Like an $850,000 difference.
Please stop lumping in middle class families with millionaires. (Yes, in urban areas $150,000 is ‘middle class’) If you live in a metropolitan area and have a couple kids you cannot afford to pay for all your kids college on a salary of $150,000.
4
“Jeff Weaver, a senior adviser to Mr. Sanders, called Mr. Buttigieg the elitist, saying, “The reason why people aren’t going to college is because not everybody can afford to go to college.””
Wrong. This idea that everyone must attend college and that it is a “right” is pernicious and harmful - and yes, elitist. I agree with Mayor Pete.
1
When did a $150,000 per year head of a four person household become a millionaire?
7
If Buttigieg had an actual problem with the idea of working people subsidizing the rich, he would oppose capitalism.
4
Who should go to college? And who should go to trade school?
We need students to be on a 'career track' for one of those two optons. Like Germany and other countries who are more 'clear' about what jobs suit your skills.
The 'free college' offer may confuse some students who should be on a different track. The bigger picture is often missed by politicians who are simply trying to get elected.
@Jon Why are so many people confusing free cost with open admission?
At what point do the wealthy say enough? If you are making over 250k you are going to be giving 50-60% of your money to Uncle Sam.
1
The big problem with the "free college" idea is that once the government guarantees tuition there is no longer any incentive for colleges and universities to try to control costs. Every school in the country would immediately raise tuition, and keep raising it, until the taxpayers finally revolted. By which time it'd be too late.
This isn't rocket science. If the government is handing out blank checks, the universities will be only too happy to cash them for the largest amount possible. You know it, and I know it. It's human nature.
Inevitably, what would happen is that schools would abuse the system, and the federal government would have to step in and start regulating university budgets to try to stop the gravy train.
Two problems with this: 1) it'd be extremely costly, as you'd essentially have to create, fund, and regulate another branch of the federal government with similar powers as the IRS, and 2) you'd be more or less giving up local control, something states traditionally have valued in their universities. So you'd get higher taxes, higher costs, and less of a say in what goes on. Woo hoo.
A much better idea would be free preschool. It'd be much cheaper, the benefits would be more widespread, and it would be a boon to working families rather than the academics, the bureaucrats, and the bankers.
2
First of all public grade school and public high schooling is not free. A major portion of our property taxes and the endless fundraisers help to pay for that education. Still it is not enough. Teacher pay for what they do is just not commensurate. Plus many teachers have to pay for their own supplies for their classrooms.
As for higher education, I feel 2 year institutions, (i.e.trade schools, community colleges, etc), should offer education on a sliding scale fee according to the income of the individual, or of their family if they are still supported by them. Myself, for example, went to a 2 year community college to get my associate degree in nursing. Because of my parents income, I was able to get grants to pay for my education, books, and other supplies. When I graduated, I was left with paying 2,000 dollars above what the grants covered. I was given 5 years to pay it back with a very low interest rate.
Continuing with education beyond the 2 year, should again, be on a sliding scale fee according to income, but should also factor in the effort put into the 2 year. GPA is isn’t always the best indicator, it is the effort put into schooling. Like always handing assignments in on time, letting a teacher know that a subject is difficult, and seeing what could be done to better understand the subject. Finding extra credit projects to do. Whatever it would take to show that one is really trying. Effort should be rewarded.
As businesses, how do colleges survive the weak relationship between the uniformly high cost of production and the grossly irregular quality of output?
1
Both plans are fine.
The Sanders and Warren plan avoids Grudge Match politics, where any non-universal social program is perceived (not the reality but the perception), of granting "the other" an unfair advantage.
Defeating Trump is such a screaming priority that I don't know why Dems want to fight about which of two good plans is better or worse at this point.
2
“Free college” is not a birthright in Europe. Places in college are very limited and completion is stiff. Are we willing to have competitive exams aà la Europe? Didn’t think so. After all , that would be discriminatory. We also don’t have a national university, but a state system which varies tremendously. Free UCLA or free SUNY?
@Demelza Why are you confusing paying with being admitted?
As Milton Friedman would postulate this will just result in College Education costs going through the roof. Academics especially those who teach close to financially worthless Majors like Social Work, History, and English among others will be happy. Probably many of those same Academics are probably big Bernie and Warren supporters. I do think it’s immoral and unconscionable that many Liberal Arts Institutions let kids go into 6 figures of debt knowing full well that the career ops in many of these Majors are limited and low paying.
Mediocre Students will be happy because what’s the difference? We actually need to see more Academic Institutions go away. If a child is a Good Student and majors in Engineering, Business, Coding, etc. I’m all for Tuition Assistance through and including full Scholarships.
The Hungarian economist Karl Polanyi, who is increasingly popular on the Left, wrote of what he called "Embededdness," meaning the degree to which all social relations are invisibly embedded within pure economic relations under Capitalism. Buttigieg's mendacious proposal is an excellent example.
As a rule the wealthy don't send their children to public universities. Not that the education isn't as good, rather, it's because the elite, private universities offer endless opportunities for networking, self-dealing among one's own kind, and above all the perpetuation of an elite class system.
Buttigieg's proposal is just another twisted variant of the "lucky ducky" fantasy beloved of oligarchs: that the poor and the middle class really have it better than the oligarchs, and that is as it should be under his plan.
You can take the Harvard whiz kid out of Harvard but you can't take the elitism out of the whiz kid--after all, that's the sum total of his own life experience.
7
College will be free when all teachers, administrators, and everyone else needed to operate the institution donate their time. Until then it is merely a question of who will pay. There is nothing free about it. Candidates who employ such inane phrases as "free college" should not be trusted.
2
I vote my tax money stops being shipped overseas and given away for free and pays for college instead. How's that.
5
So if someone just misses the arbitrary cut off point by five dollars it will cost them THOUSANDS ?
2
'Free college', like MfA, will be highly disruptive.
Who decides the value of 'free'? Is it the same for UNC Chapel Hill and UC Berkeley as at UNC Pembroke and UC Merced?
When college is free, who sets salaries for professors and administrators?
What happens to endowments and alumni giving? Is that garnished and spread around?
Most free things eventually become commodities. Do we want our public colleges and universities to become commodities, scarcely regarded in the same breath as private colleges and universities? Will this backfire, so that a free public degree gets no notice from the Fortune 500? Won't that stratify us even further?
Will this mad dash to 'free' mean that undergraduates can delay getting a degree as long as they want? We once called these people 'townies.' Should we now call them 'freebies'? How many credits are enough? When do we tell them to get a job?
In Europe, standardized testing decides who gets to go to college and who must pursue a trade. Maybe that's one of the ways they can afford 'free college.' Is that what we want here?
'Free college' is fraught with unintended consequences.
In the first place, there is no much difference between what Buttigieg, Warren and Sanders are saying, because rich people don’t go to public colleges. Buttigieg plan of limiting to $150000 meant mainly to score political points in Iowa, where $1500000 is high income. But, it hurts people living in NewYork and California, where the cost of living is high. Coming up with an arbitrary number solely to score political points is deceptive and dishonest.
5
They will say whatever it takes to get them elected. They’re politicians. That’s what they do.
1
Before you talk about making college free or student loan forgiveness you need to attack the cost side of the equation.
A better start is free community college for 2 years
1
The people who do worse in society are those without a college degree. These policies are a transfer from people who end up doing fairly well to those who don't. I understand that the goal is to help more people do college - so that's a benefit. But it won't fully have that effect.
Also, isn't most of the inequality created in the education system all about the massive variation in school (not college) between "rich" and "poor" kids. Giving free college to a kid who has gone to 12 years of an underfunded under-resourced school, is a total waste of time and is completely out of touch with the people Warren and Sanders "think" they are trying to help.
1
The idea of lumping people who make $150K in with people who make millions of dollars or hundreds of millions of dollars, or billions of dollars is maddening. In some areas of the country, $150K could be a cop and a teacher, or a nurse and a garbageman. Yeah, you, teacher and nurse, you're in the same situation as a hedge fund manager.
5
College isn't for everyone. We've come to a point where college faculty are doing remedial education to help students with basic spelling, and in constructing grammatically correct sentence. That is ridiculous, and waste of a faculty's PhD. We need jobs for high school graduates, more vocational colleges and a three year degree program attached to a Masters and a PhD program.
Right now what do you do with copious numbers of BAs in History, Anthropology, Music, etc, or BScs in Physics, Chemistry, Math, etc? They can't teach, they can't do research, nor can they do advanced critical analysis. They are not good for anything, except to want to sit behind a desk and look important. Four degree programs have become useless.
University is not for everyone, and a four year degree is useless for most everyone.
1
People have to realize that free college does not equate to 13th grade. Students would still have to have the desire and ability to go. Colleges now would have the best and brightest from all walks of life, rather than the best of some, and others whose parents can cut a check, while still some of our brightest are left out. Excluding the rich (arbitrarily defined here at $150,000) makes no sense...in fact, now rich kid, you better be smart too, because you're competing for a spot against everyone.
Making college free would dramatically change the education system. In Germany students are put on college vs no college tracks as young as fifth grade. When university is free the government wants to be very sure about the payoff. We have to think about the implications and what sort of society we would like to live in.
-NW
Buttigieg's is the right approach. I'm not a supporter, but then I'm not a supporter of any of the candidates. It's a motley crew. I'll end up holding my nose and voting D again, though.
The Democratic Party and Labour in the UK are failing Western democracy almost as much as the GOP and Tories. They are not producing leadership when the world needs it most.
2
In the long run, what Buttigieg is suggesting simply will not work. In Europe public education is paid for by the government, for everybody no matter their income. In Europe the consensus opinion is that such policies must be universal, if they are to win broad public acceptance and support. Moreover, programs with income based limitations will unavoidably furnish the false racist resentments that will be the means of their own destruction in the hands of rightwing radicals or racist demagogues like Mr. Trump. I myself believe we should start by making college tuition itself affordable again. For instance, a student should be able to pay their own tuition with a typical summer job. Obviously tuition isn't the only cost associated with college, and those other costs must be addressed.
2
German universities are free. In the last ranking of the top 100 universities, 3 were German all ranked 90th or higher. More than a dozen of the top 20 are private American universities. You devalue a college degree by making it free.
Ask the next cab driver you have in Buenos Aires where they got their engineering degree and why they aren't working as an engineer. College is free in Argentina and thus many mediocre engineering schools drive down the salaries paid to the engineers graduating from the top engineering schools. Ask how large the size of their classes were. Ask how often they spoke to the professor.
Liz' campaign slogan should be "free stuff and no way to pay for it". Her proposal to fund Medicare for All was so absurd the WSJ called it a fairy tale. Among other imaginary funding sources was a billion dollars taken from our military for special operations like the one that killed al-Baghdadi. Liz calls this a "slush fund".
Meanwhile Bernie owns 3 houses but blames "speculators" for the high cost of housing. The 3rd house was bought with a bonus paid to his wife with federal funds when she was president of a college. That college has now closed. The House should be investigating what happened to our money.
These two are frauds. Liz lied about being an Indian, Bernie's wife stole federal funds but he screams about the system being rigged for millionaires, of which he is one.
Free college! Do their supporters consider the consequences?
2
“I believe we should move to make college affordable for everybody,” he said in an ad released last week. “There are some voices saying, ‘Well, that doesn’t count unless you go even further — unless it’s even free for the kids of millionaires.’ But I only want to make promises that we can keep.”
Buttigieg is the moderate voice we need. Sanders and Warren are Pollyanna’s.
2
I love all these people saying rich kids don't go to public college kids.
If you don't think there are rich kids at UVA, the University of Michigan, UNC, Wisconsin, Maryland, UCLA, etc., you're quite wrong.
2
Once upon a time in the mythical land of NYC, every qualified kid who wanted a college education but had no money went to CCNY. Were they overrun by Park Avenue millionaires looking to save money on the Harvard and Yale legacy admission tuitions that would set their offspring up with a lifetime of invaluable contacts and relationships? The issue is a red herring to most Americans. PS: the kids would still have to get in and stay in.
16
It should be needs tested but it shouldn't be a hard cutoff, more of a sliding scale.
Means testing a programs creates it's own gravediggers. An income limit is deeply unfair, as those excluded with pay higher taxes for it and have to pay tuition at the same time. This plan is designed to fail.
The rich get free stuff is the most transparently phony smear I've ever heard. They know that the wealthy go to private universities not state schools.
Funny how in the 1950's we more or less had free public colleges and it was only after integration that suddenly fees were being introduced. Obviously a coincidence.
1
Warren and Sanders want to make a lot of things free. The problem is nothing is free. Also, not everyone needs or wants to go to college.
These progressive Democrats just seem so out of touch with what most of us want and need. And, it will lead to what we want the least: four more years of Donald Trump.
2
The problem with an income limit (or, in New York State, complex residency requirements and full-time status requirements) is that you surround the choice to attend college with bureaucracy and create a "system" that perhaps needs to be "gamed."
On the other hand, the problem with "free" college is that you remove any incentive not to waste this valuable resource.
Keep it simple, keep it frictionless. Create cheap college for all. Get tuition down below $1K/year for all students.
1
All of these candidates have a blind spot to the role non-elite private colleges play in providing educational opportunities to working class and middle class students of average or below average levels of preparedness. The actual cost to attend many of these is lower than the cost to attend regional public institutions, yet these colleges provide smaller class sizes, more direct contact with professors, and have greater success at retaining and graduating these students than do many of their public counterparts. Many rank extremely high on the US News And World Reports rankings of colleges that promote social mobility. These plans would probably close such colleges, channeling low income first generation students with average or below average academic preparedness into publics with worse track records of success among this class of students. Community Colleges are one path, but too many of these rely on poorly paid and over-worked adjuncts to teach their classes. Any realistic plan to increase college opportunity needs to consider every institution’s graduation rates for students of each income class, whether they are private or public, and invest in the ones that have the greatest success in these areas. It makes no sense to pour millions of taxpayer dollars into institutions that have extremely low six year graduation rates. These plans operate on the false premise that affordability is the sole barrier to success. It is a very important, but not the only factor.
What the article doesn't mention is the HOURS, DAYS, filling out financial aid forms, and the colleges reviewing them.
Making public universities and colleges tuition free for everyone.. SAVES everyone hundreds of hours of loss time. If you put a value on people's time and given we are arguing about a sliver of people who make over $150,000 who will send their kids to public colleges and universities, it makes sense to make it public for everyone without forcing everyone to submit financial aid applications.. which are particularly difficult for poor people with unstable incomes.
Buttigieg calls small donor money "pocket change." He blitzed Iowans with millions of dollars of TV ads funded by special interest money attacking Bernie and Warren on their healthcare policies, and now he's doing the same on college education.
The Partnership for America's Health Care Future, a coalition of insurers, bought half of all political advertising in Iowa over the summer and ran the same message as Buttigieg. They spent $300,000 on targeted ads on Facebook. They have been writing opinion pieces for Republicans AND Democrats.
We will never make progress on anything - guns, healthcare, climate change, college education - if politicians are beholden to special interests. Buttigieg equals business-as-usual, more of the same.
This is the first we have a shot at getting someone in the White House who isn’t beholden to corporate interests or billionaires.
5
Buttigieg calls small donor money "pocket change." He blitzed Iowans with millions of dollars of TV ads funded by special interest money attacking Bernie and Warren on their healthcare policies, and now he's doing the same on college education.
The Partnership for America's Health Care Future, a coalition of insurers, bought half of all political advertising in Iowa over the summer and ran the same message as Buttigieg. They spent $300,000 on targeted ads on Facebook. They have been writing opinion pieces for Republicans AND Democrats.
We will never make progress on anything - guns, healthcare, climate change, college education - if politicians are beholden to special interests. Buttigieg equals business-as-usual.
This is the first time in modern history that we have a real shot at getting someone in the White House who isn’t beholden to corporate interests or billionaires.
1
Warren and Sanders have a comprehensive approach. We will need many many more EKG techs and MRI techs and oncology nurses and pediatricians if we have truly universal health care once we eliminate the middleman - AKA the real Death Panels; the insurance industry.
So they can afford to work on government salaries, like they do in the rest of the world, they all need to have no debt over their heads once they complete training at the free trade schools and free technical training and free medical school and free nursing school that Warren and Sanders propose.
2
Medicare isn't means-tested that's why it's not perceived as a handout. If tuition-free college isn't likewise universal, it'll be the food stamps of education. Also, isn't the mayor educated entirely through private schools?
3
@J Marie writes (NYTimes pick) that we should include non-college advanced education in public support. I heartily agree with one caveat. Let's change the language. Why distinguish between 'college' and other post-high school education? Why can't public colleges and universities lend their street cred to the trades? Do we imagine that running today's practical economy is so much less mentally rigorous than academic courses? Been in a modern machine shop lately?
We teach both trade and college prep courses in public high schools. Why not teach both in public colleges?
2
It pays dividends to invest in smart people. I have real world examples to share. I have several cousins who got free college based on their talent. They went to Princeton, North Carolina, and University of Maryland based on their academic talent. They ALL came from a household making a little more than $150k annually, and they ALL ended up contributing back much much more than the investment made in them. My cousin who went to UMD got a full ride through his masters in computer science, he graduated 12 years ago, he’s more than paid back - in taxes alone - and will continue to pay back until he retires.
It doesn’t make sense to draw an arbitrary line and say we only want to invest in SOME smart people from select circumstances. Just invest in smart people. Value EVERYONE.
3
A college education(or vocational post high school training if one prefers) should be free and available to all for the same reasons we have public schools from K-12. This is not mandatory, but it should be free and public or public funded We need an educated citizenry for the benefit of the country as a whole. No one should not be able to get higher education for lack of money. Children should not be beholden to parents to pay for this if parents do not want to, cannot or are in conflict with their children. Buttigieg is just wrong about this.
4
Tuition and fees at our in-state university here in Vermont costs $17K per year. That is just tuition and fees. If Pete thinks that paying this amount is affordable for a family of 4 making $150K (with two kids in college at the same time), he is nuts. Billionaires and millionaires will continue to send their children to expensive private universities anyway. We don't have to pay to use other public goods, like roads or police services, based on how much we earn. Why should public college be any different?
5
No one should have a right to go to college. It should be affordable to all but earned with good enough grades, regular attendance and staying on track to finish in an acceptable time frame.
1
Sens. Waren and Sanders are just pandering in an attempt to "buy" votes. Come-on, free college, free healthcare, Bernie has even gone on to say FREE INTERNET! Realistically, how is all this going to be subsidized?
If this does come true, I'm sorry I scrimped and saved my whole life , and did without the luxuries for my comfortable retirement!
I was fortunate enough to have gone to a New York City college in the 1950's, I paid $8 per semester. I come from a blue collar family who could not afford to help me. With working while in school and summer jobs, I could afford any living expenses. I ended up going to a private professional school, managing the $1,000 annual tuition. Later on I received a public health fellowship that enabled me to attend an ivy league school with a stipend and tuition paid. I have served in the navy and the public health service, and devoted my career to professional education in a public university.
In my over 40 years at the university, I have seen a dramatic decline in state and federal support for education. This shift from public to student funding of education has been tragic. We talk about free college as if it were some alien concept, but it was within my lifetime that the concept of free college was a reality. We can do it again.
4
There is a huge omission in this article - no mention of vocational training or trade schools. And not seeing any conversation about alternate education is both mystifying and insulting. Many people would choose a vocation if training was available in a society that valued important skills that aren't typically learned in a college program.
The "highly educated" (an annoying and unfair term) Elizabeth Warren AOC and Sanders come off as tone deaf when they don't bring up any alternatives to attending a free university. Maybe they do have non-college proposals but I am not hearing about them.
This article quotes Sirota, a Sanders advisor, as saying Pete Buttigieg cites statistics that indicate many people don't want access to free college. I'm sure Sirota was trying to use this as weapon against Buttigieg. Seems like it backfired. Gee, a Rhodes Scholar and Harvard graduate (Buttigieg) being aware that not everyone wants college. How refreshing.
@John H
You're not hearing about him. If you haven't noticed, there is once again a Bernie Blackout in most msm.
However, here is Sanders refuting Buttigieg and talking about vocational/trade schools w/Chris Hays. (they are covered by the way in Sanders plan) (W/transcript)
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/bernie-sanders-fires-back-at-pete-buttigieg-s-free-college-critique/ar-BBXPxJw?li=BBnb4R5
2
@John H Community colleges and trade schools are included in Bernie Sanders' plan!
Quote from BernieSanders.com:
"When Bernie is in the White House, he will:
Pass the College for All Act to provide at least $48 billion per year to eliminate tuition and fees at four-year public colleges and universities, tribal colleges, community colleges, trade schools, and apprenticeship programs. Everyone deserves the right to a good higher education if they choose to pursue it, no matter their income."
I searched Elizabeth Warren's website and found this: "Give every American the opportunity to attend a two-year or four-year public college without paying a dime in tuition or fees." However, there is no specific mention of trade schools that I could find. Buttigieg's plan does not include community colleges or trade schools.
1
It seems to me the argument between universal and means-tested programs is fairly pedantic. What matters more is how will either plan affect the system of Higher Education in this country. Even if the Sanders' plan was adopted (an unlikely event, in my view), our system of universities could not afford to admit any more students than they do now. Why is no one asking what sorts of cost restraints would have to be imposed upon universities by the government? It does not seem realistic to expect the government to cover everything that universities need to function, and yet there is the assumption that it can.
1
Paying all higher education costs of college/university should only be considered with strings attached. Not everyone wants college. This also eliminates choice, a very important aspect of going for higher education. Why not establish a strong system of trade schools with tuition credits in addition for those that want this type of education?
2
@NOTATE REDMOND
Bern has trade/vocational schools covered.
Here he is with Chris Hays talking about it.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections-2020/bernie-sanders-fires-back-at-pete-buttigieg-s-free-college-critique/ar-BBXPxJw?li
2
Here in New Jersey, community college is free, on limited basis, to families earning $45K or less (can include single people). In New York, SUNY and CUNY are free for families earning less than $125K.
Clearly, an income cap doesn't fit everyone; and Buttigeig's $150K is quite a high ceiling in states where cost of living and education are far lower than in the Northeast for example. It is a sensible approach nevertheless.
Millionaires and billionaires have already received a quite generous tax break courtesy of the Trump administration. Unless they're going to see a huge tax increase under a Democratic administration, do we really need to gift them free public college (which could include elite institutions like William and Mary, U Michigan, Rutgers, or Berkeley?
1
I support free college education or free job training for all when income does not go over 200,000 for a family or 100,000 for an individual. The taxpayer should not have to fund higher education for people who can afford to pay for it at a public college. We should also allow people on welfare to get a free college education and of course their children. I will never support public tax dollars to fund private education at all. Right now we have created an underclass of people with no access to moving out of poverty or stagnant low wage jobs. That must change.
1
Public universities are already highly subsidized by government funds, and anyone who attends benefits from these subsidies regardless of income. Efforts should be made to keep costs as low as possible while maintaining and improving the quality of education provided. Since the vast majority of students choosing to attend public universities are of low and moderate income, these government subsidies are preferentially benefiting exactly the population most in need. One wonders if the costs of administration of a means-limited system wouldn’t be better reallocated to directly supporting education.
1
Tuition free programs for college and trade schools should be scaled on income and situation. Warren or Sanders policies will lose the election.
2
"Buttigieg, Sanders and Warren Debate: Free College for Some or for All?"
How about if we stop using the word "free" to describe what is being debated? College professors, administrators, and staff don't work without compensation. The people who do maintenance, landscaping, food service, and janitorial services at colleges don't work without compensation. Campus safety officers, health care professionals, and support staff don't work without compensation. Lights have to be turned on. Buildings have to be heated. Vehicles have to be maintained.
Operating colleges and universities costs money. Someone has to pay for the operation of colleges and universities. Nothing about the economics of higher education is "free."
3
Let me be straight with you, parents with the means of sending their children to a private four year college are not going to be sending their children to free public college.
My parents paid over $250,000 to send me to a top tier university. They started saving before I was born and I will always be thankful for that, but I have classmates who weren't as lucky as I was and took on a lot of debt.
We all had the option of going to a local/state school and paying far less to get the same degree, but there is a level of bias when it comes to where a degree is coming from, and we all knew that. I observed this earlier this year when my company was looking to hire an entry level consultant. My boss was much more interested in meeting with candidates who had attended well known private schools.
Warren and Sanders are proposing free PUBLIC college as well as trade school. They are not suggesting that Harvard is suddenly going to be free for multi-millionaires. Rich people will still continue to be pay to send their kids to Ivys - just look at the college scandal earlier this year for evidence - but a free public college option gives those not as fortunate the chance to try and get a foot in the door. It may not be Harvard, but it is a degree.
4
We need higher taxes to fully fund public education. If those funds come primarily from the richest families then those families should also be able to attend.
What is great about the University of California campuses is that there is a broad range of families.
Rich kids would benefit greatly from becoming friends with kids who are just as smart and they are , work just as hard as they do, but have less money.
5
The affordability issues with higher education and health care have some common roots, which point to better solutions than free.
Colleges and health care providers have money thrown at them from student loans and insurance respectively, resulting in creeping bloat and inflation.
Medicare has shown a way to affordable health care, based on working lifetime income based premiums, treatment cost sharing and price controls.
Some state universities have found ways to keep college affordable and accessible, by partnering with community colleges for the first two years of a four year degree, free tuition for Pell grant recipients, state subsidies, quality on-line courses and on-campus work experience opportunities.
Prevention is another common root. The worst possible for a student loaded with debt is a failure to graduate, a situation that applies to about half of all higher ed students.
Colleges that go the extra mile to ensure a high graduation rate are analogous to health care providers that are proactive in preventing hospital readmission, a similarly costly failure.
The US has a lot of experiments in both both higher education and health care. We could try expanding the ideas that work.
2
This is offering free goodies. College should not be a free goodie. Too many teenagers go to college with no solid idea about why they are there. Maybe they will decide by their third year. Maybe they won't. Making it free will reinforce that behavior. Many are academically unqualified or unable to perform as required. Meanwhile many high school students would better serve themselves in a vocational training school, more attuned to their ability and maybe more likely to lead to reliable employment while costing far less. Warren and Sanders are not engaging in a serious discussion about availability of higher education. I wait for a candidate with courage enough to confront the excessive going to college by young people who are neither qualified or aware of what they're doing there and can encourage then to follow alternatives.
2
@blgreenie Its not a goodie. Its a requirement.
The rich will pay higher taxes.
Let the kids at least feel equal and not distinguished by how much their parents paid for their education.
End educational debt and end the madness of the overwrought college admission process fueled by anxiety over whether people can get in to a place they can afford. Applying to so many colleges, taking so many standardized tests, all kinds of contortions to show extra curricular activities and something worthy of the essay - all this time and energy and expense could go for something much more meaningful if we took the sense of desperation out of the admission process.
2
A wealthy young person going to a state university would be a good learning experience I think.
5
What I don't see mentioned is the idea that a more educated population is better for everyone. I guess I'm in the camp that says education is a public good rather than a commodity.
7
I'm not uniformly opposed to an income limit on tuition. However, Mayor Pete's suggestion is misguided to say the least. I struggle to say that politely too.
Here's the thing: If you're going to cut off tuition based on income, there a few ways can do it intelligently. Making an absolute limit is not one of them.
First thing, the dollar amount needs to be index to inflation. This is the same battle we keep having again and again over the minimum wage. $7 an hour was a lot of of money once. The year was 1980. Prices go up. Therefore, the tuition limit also needs to go up. We shouldn't need to keep going back to Congress explaining how $150,000 a year isn't worth what it used to be.
Second thing, $150,000 doesn't mean the same thing in Topeka, Kansas as it does in New York City. Prices vary geographically. You need to index the tuition limit to cost of living. Otherwise, you're disproportionately privileging rural America while unfairly punishing urban dwellers.
Third thing, is it even worth it? Sorting out all the income levels and special cases and this, that and the other all carries a very high administrative cost. I suggest it's worth letting a few rich kids skate if we can lower the cost of college by just simply admitting everyone tuition free. The rich kids will probably favor private colleges anyway.
3
Context is needed here.
Some years ago educators noticed that data strongly showed that those who earned a BA degree earned more income over their lifetimes. This observation caused a mistaken correlation: that simply going to college increased lifetime income.
What actually happens is that the economy tends to reward those who earn a BA degree on the basis of an assumption that their earning of the degree shows both their self-discipline, as well as the mastering of abstract, rather than concrete, thinking. Historically this has worked out to mean that around a third of the population earns a degree along with the income augmentation.
So pubic schools rushed to implement “college for all” programs. To have done otherwise would have left them open to charges of elitism or racism. This nearly destroyed “vocational” programs.
What should have happened is to look instead at how students think, focusing on the kinds of tasks at which they are both adept and interested. Some will flourish with the abstract effort that college requires. Some are more comfortable with the concrete styles of thinking that we used to offer in what were called vocational programs. In many other countries, those are where apprenticeship programs provide post-high school learning. These are no longer simple job training efforts, but are sophisticated programs that provide needed skills in highly paid technical fields.
Our economy, as well as our citizens, need both, not just college for all.
2
"Notably, Mr. Buttigieg and his advisers are making the sort of populist argument — why should the government spend taxpayer dollars to help millionaires? — that we more often hear from Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren."
This is a misleading statement. The only way universal programs like social security stay functional is by making sure everyone has a stake in them. If social security was only for poor people, wouldn't it be much easier to defund it like so many social programs are under constant threat of?
5
Perhaps I've missed something in during this give-away bonanza of promises of late. We have, so far, free tuition, free medical care, student loan forgiveness, medical debt forgiveness and more.
That all sounds sooo wonderful. Yet, do any of these candidates, other than Amy Klobuchar, remember that this nation is already on a runaway train of debt? Where is the money coming from to pay not only for this grab bag of goodies but also to pay off what we already owe?
News flash candidates: Our credit cards are already maxed out!
Mayor Pete needs to be properly and directly challenged on his false arguments. Sanders and Warrens plans include all kinds of education, including trade schools, Mayor Petes does not! There is nothing at all elitist about Sanders' or Warren's plans, if anything its the other way around. And regarding cappong income... 100k in NYC, Boston, Seattle or DC is not at all the same thing as 100K in South Bend. Regardless, why shouldnt rich people get free tuition as well. Will they get a tax credit for heing excluded? Nice talking point Pete, but if everyone is paying taxes, everyone should benefit, period. Unless of course what you really want is for those earning over 100k to have a very valid equity argument so the end result is nothing happens.
5
Free quality preschool for all would be a wiser place to start than free college. As for public college, how about free if you maintain a minimum B average and show up for class, or else in exchange for two years of community service?
1
If you make colleges free, what stops colleges from skyrocketing their prices to build fancier gyms and have the gov't pay for it? There's always a problem when the person paying isn't the same as the person receiving.
3
Universal free education at all state colleges and universities is the only way to go. Many Americans have no sense of civic duty or an idea of the common good. They only care about what’s in it for them. If we want healthcare or college education for everyone. Everyone must be able to partake. If you leave a loophole it will be exploited until you have nothing left.
3
When Buttigieg talks, he keeps mentioning millionaires, but if you read the story, his cap is $150,000. That's a long way from a million! Also, I wonder what percentage of actual college-going millionaire children attend public universities? In all of those admissions scandals, not one has been to a public university.
5
If all qualified students were eligible for free education at state and local colleges the system would be simple and straightforward. Perhaps a segment of those students might come from families who could afford private tuition (though realistically those would be more likely to go to private colleges), but if there were an income cutoff that would cause people to try to game the system, leading to dissension and complexity. Maybe they’re different in Indiana, but parents in NY, or NJ, or CA or a lot of places would throw the chicks out of the nest or come up with any other schemes to avoid paying. That would set students against each other and start some segment of students off on the wrong foot in life - like the Ivy admission scandal kids today. Pete needs to develop a lower, more realistic, less Midwestern view of people and get over trying to describe everything in raw math nerd numbers.
1
Buttigieg says he doesn't want to pay for college for millionaires, then sets the cut-off for educational benefits at $150,000, an income that is nowhere near being a millionaire and more like middle class in most cities. He doesn't know what a family making $150,000 can afford - maybe they have medical bills or take care of sick family members. Maybe they live in a city like NYC or SF where half their income is spent on rent. Maybe they have their own college debt that they are still paying off. Arbitrary cut-offs on who "deserves" a discount on college are never going to be perceived as fair and are not going to be supported by most Americans.
AOC is right - everyone has to be able to participate. Look at K-12 education - people who can afford it fight to buy properties in expensive neighborhoods so their kids can have access to "good" public schools. "Rich" people have already shown they are willing to pay higher taxes to support education if their own children get to benefit. Let them do the same for college.
5
For all the parading of education, it seems that the proponents of "free" are forgetting their basic college lessons in economics and behavioral science.
Decrease the price to zero and the demand will go up dramatically. Forget good grades; for many when there is no skin in the game there is no sacrifice, which is what higher education is about. Therefore, this comes at a HUGE cost to the tax payer. hhUUUUUGE!
As a percentage of enrollment, the number of college grads will drop substantially making the entire education experience vastly inefficient.
If politicians where brave, they'd offer tuition reimbursement at graduation as incentive to complete, not just start college.
Government has a difficult time managing costs. How do I say no this this demographic?
7
@Dude - Er and why will the colleges & universities admit everyone? I must have missed that part.
4
How can college tuition be based on family income, when we have no long have a clear definition of what constitutes a family? How about people who choose to enter college after age 21 and whose parents do not normally support them? What about the growing number of young people whose parents never married and whose parents live apart, possibly even unaware of where the other parent now lives? Households are listed statistically by government, but not families, per se.
5
As a millennial (peak entitlement) I'm skeptical of "free." Who pays the salaries for these adjunct professors, technicians, nontenure track faculty, and those on tenure track. Taxing the rich? Who also pay for college? When parents are paying for college, many students don't take it seriously. Will being free in grease graduation rate?
5
I enjoyed a ‘free’ college education in Europe. I did not take anything for granted. And I did not take home a student debt. The value of education does not change a bit. And the term ‘free’ is misleading. On purpose no doubt. It is paid for. By all because all benefit from well educated doctors, plumber and journalist.
5
@Randeep Chauhan - As the same questions for K - 12 education or, for that matter, the police or even our army.
3
In Canada, the different provinces subsidize tuition in different ways. Universities are affordable, but they are not free.
The academic standards are strict. There is significant attrition in going from the first year to the fourth.
There are fewer frills than you find in U.S. colleges, and a lot less emphasis on sports.
It’s paid for by taxes, obviously, which fall largely on the upper-middle class, but this is the class that benefits the most from college education, so the overall balance is fair.
However, taxpayer funding means a relentless focus on value for money. This is very different from the U.S. system, where the quality outside the top few hundred institutions ranges from the mediocre to the outright fraudulent.
Free tuition might be fine in theory, but the bulk of American “colleges” are not worth spending money on. Unless something is done to address this, Sanders and Warren are offering little more than bread and circuses.
7
@Global Charm
I agree that the Canadian system has a lot going for it. In my view, the Canadian funding scheme works in goof part precisely because it is affordable for everybody no matter their income. That said, you haven't covered some of the more important differences. With one or two exceptions, all of the Canadian colleges and universities are public institutions. At the provincial and national levels, high school students take the same classes, study the same stuff, and follow the same course schedule. College admission isn't a black box like it is here. Admission requirements are public, transparent and largely based on test results. Admissions offices know exactly what their incoming students have studied. There are exceptions to all of this, e.g., the superb Waterloo admissions scheme which, for instance, materially includes alumni in the decision making process.
3
This is merely an accounting problem. Raise taxes on the wealthy, but let them receive the same benefits as everybody else. It does not take much math to balance that budget. Means testing is expensive, both for recipients as well as agencies. It is much easier and cheaper to raise money through income and capital gains taxes.
4
The three candidates are wrong.
Pete: out of touch with the middle class in high taxed states where the majority of the United States live. People/families may make $150k and college still unaffordable. Living in Tennessee with $150k is a lot different than in NY or Massachusetts. Basically too much to qualified for decent financial aid, too low to pay without tremendous debt.
Warren & Sanders: i don’t really need free. I just need affordable. When flagship campuses in their states is as expensive as a private school in the South or more expensive than out state tuition from the other New England states.
Public education at a higher level should be similar to k-12. If we pay taxes in our states, we should have affordable access equivalent to those years whether it is trade schools, training programs or regular colleges.
5
I understand Mayor Pete's desire to exclude the wealthy from free public college; the rich can afford to pay. From a practical viewpoint, however, it is more efficient to make public college free for all students. In this way, there is no requirement for an administrative office to collect tuition from students and for a process to determine who needs to pay and how much. The wealthier students (or their parents) pay for the education through higher taxes because they are wealthy. It's simply more efficient.
In general, we don't charge wealthy people more for government services that are associated with fees (there are exceptions), instead we collect the extra money through higher taxes. In order for this to work, the wealthy MUST pay higher taxes (as both Bernie and Ms. Warren have suggested).
4
What Mr. Buttigieg and others fail to understand is that higher education is not as much a benefit for the student as it is a benefit for society at large. I agree that higher education is not for everybody. But, for the benefit of society, the access to it should be regulated based on intellectual qualities of the applicants. Not on their wealth. From this perspective it seems both obvious and simpler taking into account the disparity of wealth at tax time. Not at student's application time.
3
@SM
Can't wait to see how we manage the intellectual capabilities of those who want to be admitted to free college.
European countries do this by testing. Some are then college-track, some are trade-track.
I doubt this approach will work in America and I'm uncertain that it should.
@Dave T. Same way as we do now by standardized tests and interviews if one wants to go to Harvard or any private University. I do not see the difficulty.
2
Roads are taxpayer funded. Is there an income limit for driving on them?
I'm old enough to remember when tuition for commuter students at state colleges and universities was cited in hundreds rather than thousands of dollars. Specifically, annual basic tuition at the University of Minnesota was $375 a year, or 300 times the minimum wage, and since the main campus is located in the state's largest metropolitan area, it was a great deal for lower-income students who could live with their parents and pay their full tuition with a summer job.
For the most part, rich kids went to private colleges, but even those were cheaper in real terms than they are now.
But nowadays, with basic tuition--no room and board, no books or lab fees--at $14,442 per year (1,460 times Minnesota's current minimum wage) and private college tuition in the stratosphere and heading into interstellar space, the average family income of U of M students is the highest it's ever been.
In other words, it is rich kids who are taking advantage of the current tuition structure.
5
universal access to public college isn't just for kids... older adults who need training for career changes or higher education access so that they can support themselves in today's economy is a very very real thing.
5
The average cost of college today at a public institution for out of state students is $41k. It's difficult to afford for a person even earning more than $150,000 and paying 1/3 of it in taxes. But college, as well as trade, technical or community colleges, are a good for the country in order to have an educated and skilled, hence employable, populace. We should be encouraging and not discouraging this. I'm certain there is a threshold that makes sense but $150,000 isn't it.
2
The concept of brick and mortar college is outdated what about modernizing the educational system and distance learning.
Secondly not everyone should be going to college. It should be merit based.
We need a strong trade and vocational system
4
My concern with universal public college is that there will be a certain percentage of middle and higher income families who would have previously invested in private colleges, who would now opt into participating in state schooling once the price goes to $0. If there is a finite amount of space in a college, and admissions requirements aren't appropriately addressed, won't this squeeze out some lower income students, who have higher hurdles to overcome in completing all the necessary requirements for admission as compared to their wealthier counter parts?
5
@jon I think you are correct, this is exactly what will happen, especially in states with strong public colleges. And the wealthy tend to do better on the standardized tests that are relied on for admission.
The current means tested system relies heavily on loans that cannot be discharged through bankruptcy in adverse circumstances. These loans discourage poorer applicants and burden all applicants throughout their working life.
In contrast the wealthy are well able to fund tuition and private or public colleges as well as fund efforts to meet the highly selective criteria that are imposed to ration limited college slots.
Free college for all who can maintain good evaluations would eliminate these barriers.
3
I'm a good example of someone who got burned by FAFSA income limits.
I was raised by a single mother and was always on the lower end of income. My senior year of high school, my mom remarried and with my stepdad's income, I suddenly found myself above the income limits for several financial aid program.
The problem was that my family income had never been very high. I did not have a college fund. I never even had health insurance or any sort of medical care as a child. My new stepdad wasn't planning on giving me any money for college.
So I went to school with no financial support and struggled to work part time and pay my way. I dropped out two years in and decided I would save up and re-enroll when I was 24 years old, that way FAFSA wouldn't consider my family's income. I turned 24 in 2008 as the economy crashed.
Now I'm under-educated and under-employed because I buckled down and worked through the recession and recovery. I'd love to start over, but its still too hard to pay rent and go back to school, even with a husband to help. San Diego rent is too high to cover on only one income.
8
@Lawren And what degree were you pursuing in college?
Growing up in NYC where it was free tuition for those admitted to City Colleges of NY, the concept of "free" tuition isn't new to me. If a student had the grades, and met all other requirements of the University, they were admitted without having the burden of paying tuition. They only had to pay for books, and study materials as I recall. That free tuition program ended, however, and there were tuition charges, until a few years ago, when it started again.
My sister attended Brooklyn College tuition free, and she deserved it because of her excellent grades.
3
The amount one makes to qualify for his plan should be location dependent. You can qualify for subsidized housing in Palo Alto making between $150,000 and $250,000 - meaning you wouldn’t be paying for millionaires kids to go to college.
I like Pete on many things, but this feels out of touch with economic realities for many urban dwellers. If you can’t afford to buy a house, or if the average rent in your area is more than 1/3 of your family income, then you are not a millionaire.
8
What Buttigieg misses, and the others fail to mention, is that if you means test a program like this, you will have to set up a large bureaucracy to do the means testing --along with rules, regulations, calculators, links to the IRS, etc. That will delay implementation, cost money, and possibly reduce usage. The costs of this are probably much greater than the savings from eliminating tuition for the tiny number of wealthy individuals who want to go public universities or trade schools.
5
I had free public college (California State University) education in the 1970's. OK, it cost $100.50 per semester - it was a health fee and admin fee.
I graduated with a degree in Computer Science. I and everyone else had at least 5 job offers after graduation. I went on to work for large and small corporations, earning money and paying taxes. Eventually, I opened my own business - 30 years now and every year profitable save one.
Just like the GI Bill after WWII, my taxes paid for the 'free' college at least 7 times over.
4
The difference is cheap debt, artificial low interest rates, and other gov incentives the massive growth in administrative staff at universities has resulted in $100k tuitions.
If the US did this in the 70s it would have made more sense but in 2019 when we already have a glut of over educated people taking gender studies and complaining about not getting good jobs like their parents...I’m highly skeptical this will help anyone.
If anything this will just keep making schools more expensive and increasingly burden tax payers when the gov doesn’t even have a plan to pay for Social Security.
This is just buying votes from naive kids
There should be an income limit, if we do this at all.
Poor people and people of modest means should not be paying for affluent and wealthy kids to go to college.
I'd prefer that all colleges and universities do as my alma mater does, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Carolina Covenant guarantees a debt-free undergraduate degree upon demonstrated need.
Mayor Buttigieg's plan is tenable. Free college for all comers isn't.
I'm voting for Pete Buttigieg.
1
I attended the City College of New York in the late ‘50’s-early 60. Tuition was free. I and many others would not have been able to go to college otherwise. I don’t remember any wealthy people attending in order to get away with a free education. No. They went to other, more prestigious, colleges.
I’m sure that if we made public colleges and universities free — and remember, we are talking here only of PUBLIC colleges and universities — there will be very few wealthy families sending their children to them.
6
@Gigi Infoqueen
True My story
One thing that seems to be missing from this argument is the fact that college students are adults, and should not be dependent on their parents for their education or training. Our system hurts students at every income level; obviously, the ones whose parents can't afford it, but also those whose parents can afford it but condition their support on the student majoring in certain fields, or even outright refuse to pay.
Universal free higher education, including college and trade school, financed by progressive taxes, would enable every student to pursue their career goals like the adults they are.
4
I don’t want to pay for goofy majors either.
I think free tuition for all with no income limits. Average SAT or ACT scores, a B average and good attendance in high school are conditions that must be met.
Not everyone is meant to go to college, or university. Trade schools and apprenticeship programs which lead to careers that pay well in important industries to the public such as plumbers, electricians and carpenters are much emptier than they need to be. I would not be against providing partial tuition to trade schools instead as their certificates once completed actually mean those students are ready for a career in a specific field. For worthy students who would like to go to college and have a prayer of completing their degrees, there is a ton of scholarship money available.
3
who are you to say that not everyone is meant to go to college? it is a matter of caring enough for the society that we depend on and benefit from, and making it available to all people is the least we can do (next to universal healthcare)
@Bill The problem is that for Democrats trade schools are only for "poor"people and therefore "poor" people should also have the right to go to college just like "rich" people and not have to depend on trade/vocational schools.
Incredibly, young kids graduating from trade schools are making more money after graduation than their peers that graduated from college and received a "traditional" (re: worthless) degree.
public universities and colleges are administered by the states in which the schools are located, yes? How can the federal government of a President Warren or a President Sanders mandate that these schools shall be free to all who wish to attend? That's the big stumbling block of this plan to me. Will the federal government begin to administer all public universities and colleges and cover their expenses, determine entry requirements, set graduation standards, pay faculty and staff? The US can't, or won't, even set nationwide educational standards for K-12 students.
3
My recollection is that all the public financing such as Pell grants and the program that paid for work-study were federal programs anyway.
Most people would benefit from two years of college. I’m of the opinion that helping as many people as possible attend community college would be an improvement to the society.
6
Not everyone wants to go to college. Not everyone needs to go to college to be successful.
Perhaps a universal program for associates degree or trade school, maybe, but not a four-year degree program.
2
I agree with him. Also the US should push for apprenticeship which is a great option for people who don’t want to go to college. Just look at Germany and Switzerland.
3
Why all the negative comments? Is it the actual number of $150K that is vexing so many readers? (Which I could understand, especially based on one's zip code - $150k in NYC is not the same as $150K in Syracuse). Or just the audacity of this man to put some ceiling on the endless promises of free healthcare, college, rainbows and puppies that half the candidates seem to promise despite a 0.0% chance of ever passing as legislation?
5
@Solaris The problem is that when we start chopping up benefits for different groups, we cease to have a cohesive and functioning society, and there's all kinds of gaming and unfairness. Everyone gets medicare when they're 65. Everyone gets social security. Everyone gets to go to public school. We don't need people making $155K trying to figure out how to report their income as $149K. While you deride education and healthcare as belonging to the same category as rainbows and puppies, they're basic, necessary elements of a functioning society.
1
I am firmly in the AOC camp here. Either we believe that education and health care are benefits that we want all citizens to be able to access as a right, so that we have a shared health and opportunity threshold in the country, or we do not. Imposing income limits means that the rick will say, "hey, I am paying for poor kids to go to college," instead of having rich and poor alike participate in a system that is reflective of a shared societal value.
9
THE PURPOSE OF TAXES IS NOT TO RAISE REVENUE!
The idea that the federal gov has to pay for things, good & bad, with taxes or borrowing is just plain wrong.
The gov doesn't need your money. It can (thru the FED) create as much as it needs out of thin air. Just think about where money you pay your taxes with came from in the first place. Unless you have a printing press in your basement, it originally came from the federal gov.
But there's a catch. If the gov needs to create too much money to do the things we want it to do, we may not be able to make enough stuff to soak that money up & will have too much money chasing not enough stuff, i.e. excessive inflation. This is rare & is usually caused by
shortages, e,g, of oil.
But that's easy to solve & where taxes come in. Taxes allow the gov to take back the excess money & prevent inflation. THE PURPOSE OF TAXES IS TO ADJUST THE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE pRIVATE SECTOR. The more we can produce, the lower taxes can be.
So the way to run things is to spend money to facilitate production. Tax cuts do this, but in an inefficient way. If we cut Daddy Warbuck's taxes, he does not need to spend the money; he uses it for financial speculation. If we cut poor Joe's taxes, he spends the money on stuff--food, house paint, etc.etc. This promotes production of food, etc.
Even better if we pay Joe to fix a bridge, the money still gets into the economy, AND we get the bridge fixed.
2
So if rich or poor apply to a colleges that meet 100% of demonstrated need then rich or poor should be able to afford to attend those colleges. There is a financial aid subsidy already built into many colleges and universities. When shopping colleges determine those that will meet 100% of need and apply to only those schools? Why is there a need to create a governmental subsidy when there is already a needs based financial aid subsidy in place?
@James A. McDonald At most colleges, the "need based subsidy" is a joke.
2
Silly Candidates...NOTHING is for free.
How about putting the vote to those that they expect to pay? The Middle Class.
4
@Kimbo Of course. It is other people's money. They don't care.
Nonsense.
There is no credible ' free college' option.
The question is who is going to pay for college and how are they going to pay.
2
Whatever else you might want to say about the "rich," for the most part, they're not idiots. However a plan for free education gets defined, I suspect a lot of the children of the rich would suddenly become "emancipated" and living on their own dime. Therefore, they'd quickly beome "poor" or making less than whatever threshold amount gets them free education.
2
In a more egregarian world (hello, Europe), free college for citizenry is a birthright. In US, not so much. For the purists (I'm talking to you, Bernie), they want to reinvent US in the image of the European model.
Called me jaded, but we know - pretty much a fact - that this simply will not work in US. The electorate in general (not just the far-left) doesn't have the stomach for it. Bills of such magnitude won't get passed in the Congress.
What we know could (and would) work, is the incremental approach. It might not be the most creative solution to refashion the whole system, but we know bills like this could get passed (if we call out those politicians deep in the pockets of industry lobbists, perhaps). It's a far more pragmatic, reasonable and realistic approach to tackling the problem IMMEDIATELY, rather than The Second Coming (only god-know-when or if it'll ever come).
I thus like the propositions from Buttigieg and his middle-of-the-road approach. Biden swims in the same lane, but somehow Biden doesn't seem to advocate for any policy or new proposals except simply to beat Trump. Yes, beating Trump is the #1 task, but what do we do on day2 after you swear in office @ WH? One has to hold out hope for something more. And Buttigieg gives me something to hope for.
1
No “ free college” is not a birthright in Europe. Places in college are very limited and completion is stiff. Are we willing to have competitive exams aà la Europe? Didn’t think so. After all , that would be discriminatory.
@tiddle Are you aware that it IS NOT a birth right for every kid in Europe? They have skills assessment exams in grade school. If students don't score well enough, they don't attend college.
1
Should there be an income limit on free public high school?
4
Anything that is free has no value.I have many patients who are going to a community college some are in year 3 or 4 of a two year program.When I mention this to them they tell me I changed my major or just I am repeating a few classes that I failed or dropped out of.A better idea is grants to pay part tution and reimbursement if you finish on time. That will motivate the students who trully belong there and discourage those who are using a free ride to just spend time instead of growing up and becoming a productive part of society
3
@Arlene Solomon That's ridiculous. Does healthcare for medicare recipients have no value?
1
I tend to lean towards Sen. Warren because I like her big ideas and I like her authenticity. She’s probably the best at retail politics among the remaining candidates. She wants what’s best for America and not just to beat Trump. I feel that Sen. Sanders can match Warren in authenticity. Sanders is a millionaire with contempt for billionaires. Really?
There are people who posit that Sanders is a demagogue on the left the same way Trump is a demagogue on the right, and I’ve heard this from Democrats. Though I disagree I will grant that it has at least a presumption of validity. 
2
When candidates refer to free “education for all,” or “Medicare for all”, it’s understood that they mean to help working families. Those voters and others whose children have to take student “shark loans” that, even in an hourly rate, contracted and perm-temp full employment” economy can never afford to pay it back, afford housing, healthcare or much of anything.
Senator Warren is a pragmatist and we’ll see how she breaks the proposal down. No candidate is saying that they want to help people like Jared Kushner, whose father gave several million to Harvard so that he could get in; ditto, those involved in the college admissions scandal. However, Mayor Pete Buttigieg is forcing the details out, while fully understanding that free benefits for millionaires and billionaires is not what the candidates mean. Still, it’s a good debate.
1
I wish it would stop being titled as "free college." To call it that is disingenuous and opens it up easily for attack because it's easy for any Republican to attack "Why should anyone get something for free?"
What this and a lot of social and public programs are are investments. We are providing kids a college education so that they can become more competent workers. The money paid in will be more than made up for in a better educated worker base to drive GDP, taxbase, and innovation. Truth is that it's not free. We will all be paying for it, but we all will be benefiting from the effects as well.
1
Mayor Pete is getting scarier by the minute. He spouts the same talking points used by opponents of so many economically progressive policies in the past, but he does so with poise, polish, and panache. His demeanor and eloquence (invariably the reason most of his supporters like him) are being used to oppose Medicare for All and universally free college. His student debt plan will also likely be a watered down version of Sanders' and Warren's plans.
The other centrists in the race are known commodities and are open about their centrism (Biden Klobuchar) but Mayor Pete is new and has effectively hidden his centrism (eg. by purposely not announcing plans too early). He is an effective politician and that is not a compliment.
2
Will there be any poersonal responsibility attached to this free college proposal? If a student fails a class will they be required to pay back the cost of the class? If someone earns a degree will they be required to give back to the society that paid for their education through some kind of service? Will only certain degrees be eligible for free tuition? Also I think cost isn';t a main reason why an individual chooses not to go to college? College isn't for everyone and if you want to go there are scholarships, financial aid, and government backed loans that can be used to pay for college.
3
cost is most definitely a reason people don't go to college... and the option of taking out loans this day in age is setting a person up for an undeserved long payback period. the idea that college is not for everyone is incredibly shortsighted and will continue to deepen America's hole; we wouldn't say that education in general isn't for everyone, right?
1
A few thoughts that candidates need to weigh:
1) Some public colleges/universities are not worthy of a student's time investment (even if education is free).
2) In general, people place a higher value on things that require a personal investment. Qualified students should not be denied a college/university education because of inadequate personal/family resources, but perhaps modest tuition or on-campus job might be options. Another possible option is delayed, interest-free monthly payments post-graduation based on salary of the individual.
3) Higher education admissions processes need reform. Testing and other admission requirements do not result in the best and brightest attending the colleges/universities that are the best fit. Abolishing tuition will not fix these systemic problems.
4) Many young people would benefit from a gap year followed by community college or vocational education. Our system should help individuals choose their best path. Education is expensive (no matter who is paying) and to the extent possible, the system and the individual should have some confidence that the right choices were made.
3
How about some attention to why the cost of college has sky rocketed. When I graduated UC Berkeley in the early 1960's the tuition was $170/year including a $20 student union fee. Medical care at our campus hospital and outpatient clinics were included. My professors were fantastic, most of them having written the texts that defined their field. One was a Nobel laureate. And their salaries placed them solidly in the upper middle class. I was able to work my way through college working odd jobs. I graduated debt free, gained a liberal education as well as a start to a profession in Medicine.
I just checked on line: at UCB now not only pay tuition but additional fees as a campus fee of more than $800/yr and medical insurance. This totals to $8967/year, a 53 fold increase. But I would think the delivery of education remains the same: transmitting learning from the professor to the students. If pay scale affects the quality of teaching and my impression that UCB faculty are no longer maintaining their upper middle class incomes is correct, then if anything, the quality of teaching might have declined at UCB.
So I ask why.
1
This is a fun issue for the candidates to talk about. But I have a strong feeling that making college "free" for all isn't going to happen. So maybe we should start talking about some realistic remedies.
One would be to start with free tuition for two years of community or technical college—the students live at home while they get started, and we provide this guarantee for those kids who are in the greatest danger of being left out.
Here's another potential piece of the puzzle—letting graduates work off their loans in various ways. This worked great for me back in the 1970s, but foolishly we ditched the National Defense Education Act program that helped me and thousands of others. Maybe one wrinkle we can bring back is to provide more ways for graduates working in a variety of public service jobs or the military to gain forgiveness for their loans. Another wrinkle is to use tax incentives to encourage private sector employers to pay the college costs of their young employees.
Making our colleges work better isn’t about being nice to the kids; it’s about being nice to us so our country can survive in the increasingly tough future.
2
Even if Pete doesn’t support college for all (which I do), there is a clear misalignment here. Families with incomes of $100k or $150k are not “millionaires and billionaires.” At least in California (where I live), families with those incomes and much higher struggle and will continue to struggle to put their children through college (or pay off their degrees as I attempt to do, while paying for childcare). We know that wealth consolidation starts much higher than that. At the very least, let’s not cut the middle class out of these policies.
6
I don't know about free college. Seems it would make more sense to strengthen our grant system. We need more bodies to serve as doctors, teachers, social services, engineers and nurses etc in rural, tribal and Rust Belt areas. Why not entice students/graduates to those areas by stipulating that your tuition or debt will be paid off if you do 5 years service in a underserved area? I worry that free college may just result in a bumper crop of anthropology majors and while a fascinated subject not something we really need in the next 20 years.
3
Love the idea of service to pay off debt. Actually, I love the idea of national service for everyone.
As we have seen with K-12 schools, education is a good investment of tax dollars when schools are well run. Educated adults are better workers, soldiers, and citizens. In this high-tech world failure to educate weakens economies. It may initially make political sense to cost-share college costs with rich families, but that only looks at the cost side of the cost-benefit analysis.
We do not charge rich families for K-12. That cost is shared by all who pay related taxes since society benefits from education. The same should apply to public post-high school education. Costs can be covered by revenues from graduated income, property, and wealth taxes, and should cover even post-graduate studies to create the next generations of doctors, nurses, engineers, teachers, and scientists we need, like the G. I. bill did. Let's educate all our kids to reduce today's need to import tech workers!
5
I'd do free trade schools before college.
The US (and Canada) need to update the only sector that pays well, and can provide upward mobility to millions - Manufacturing. But the new manufacturing landscape requires more skill sets than the old.
Economically it is better to have a trained electrician than many of the degrees that would be generated.
1
In the 60s I went to City College of NY for little more than the cost of books. That free education lead to a life of software development and business formation culminating with a modest retirement at 50. I can positively affirm that w/o that CCNY education, my life & the hundreds of people I employed would have been very different. There was no way I could have afforded today's college but because the State of NY had enough wisdom to invest in its young people, I became a productive part of the economy for many years.
America needs to invest in itself and that starts with high school oriented towards teaching relevant skills and affordable college that will reboot America to the forefront of innovation and research. Our country is falling woefully behind China, Germany and others and the problem stems from the process we use to select our leaders. Hiring politicians with no skills, background checks or prior experience may have been OK when covered wagons roamed the plains, but it's ridiculous in 2020. To wit, we come to Trump. If he serves no other purpose, he demonstrates the abysmal system we use to hire management. If we're to compete globally, that competition starts with better leadership and a process that isn't based upon how many dollars the candidate can raise or how well he can distort the truth.
5
If colleges are publicly funded, what that really means is that they're tax-funded. Who pays the most taxes? Rich people. So Bernie is right, college should be tuition-free for everyone, because the rich are already paying for everyone's tuition. This also has the effect of increasing public support for the universities, because even rich people will feel like they get some benefit from the arrangement.
This is why universal health care is so critical. Universal programs get universal support. In our current situation if you're a middle-class american your axes pay for medicaid for the poor, but you get nothing and have to pay out the nose for your own family. Of course people won't support the program. Make it universal and everyone gets something, which drives more support.
8
Pete doesn’t get it. Today in large parts of America $150k is middle class and $100k in SF means you are low income according to HUD. He claims “we shouldn’t be paying for millionaires kids to attend college” but that’s a Republican talking point. All Americans should be able to afford college.
11
Mayor Pete wants an income cap for nefarious reasons. Firstly do we ban rich people from using the post office or fire department or police department or national parks, or getting SS which they paid into? No the cap the income limit is set up so that the Republicans can eventually chip away at it so regular people can slip through the cracks. The reason we still have SS is because the rich get it too. And come on, you know very few rich kids will be caught dead at a lowly public college. It is Ivey Divey for them. But even if they did go, so what, it just means the private colleges are not doing such a great job and if we all, including the rich pay for public colleges and if they are free they should be free for all, just like the library. I know I said the rich pay for all these public things but actually they hardly do pay for any public things, and that is a problem we must change, but to limit by income free public college is a sure way of losing it later, as the rich will chip away at it like food stamps. Include them in it and they will not be able to do so.
7
The idea that we would socialize and nationalize college is so problematic I hardly know where to begin. In some rosy future where we have truly resolved the racial gap, we could talk about it. Funding K-12 through property taxes leaves poor kids unequipped for the next step. Let's start with free pre-K and much more Federal money for K-12, including raising teacher salaries. A full, real high-school education for everyone would be a vast step forward for this country.
If public colleges are free for all, they will be flooded with students who are even less prepared and capable academically than those entering college now.
This will allow private colleges to maintain their low admission rates and high tuition costs, since private colleges will then be rightly known as institutions of higher quality than public colleges.
2
@Mon Ray "If public colleges are free for all, they will be flooded with students who are even less prepared and capable academically than those entering college now."
Why? The same people will be accepted as now. They will just not be paying tuition.
1
I was initially impressed with Buttigieg and his unique and insightful vision. But the more he presents his policies, the more disappointed I am. His solutions are conventional, timid—and, worse, tend to cater toward American attitudes that need to be changed if we are ever to improve our society.
His tuition plan is a prime example of what's wrong. Yes, he's knows the problem—college is too expensive for many Americans, and students and their families need help. But his solution isn't very creative. Nor is it transformative. It helps the most needy, but fails to recognize that even the children of parents earning middle class salaries come out of school with huge amounts of debt and may not earn an income equal to their parents' income for decades. These middle class people—the vast majority of American society—are struggling. On salaries often well below their parents' salaries they are supporting themselves, their own children, and often—with the high expense of long-term care—their parents. Their own tuition ate away their parents' savings and left them with huge debt—while saving for their children's future tuition means sacrificing their own financial security.
But there's even a larger problem with Buttigieg's solution. Its worst characteristic is that it reinforces division between the poor who get benefits and those who are asked to pay for the poor. We need programs that unify Americans, that make us all in it together. Buttigieg's plan does exactly the opposite.
9
@617to416 You're joking, right? I'm sorry but people who make 150k dont need a government bailout.
College should be made free/affordable for poor/lower middle class folks, not for upper middle class/rich folks.
2
@Diana
No I'm dead serious. I strongly believe that Americans should have a basic set of social programs that are provided to all equally.
5
@Diana There are many die hard lower income Republican voters who would surely benefit from Medicare for All and many other proposed "Socialist" programs but they don't support them because people the view as not deserving would benefit.
None of this comes for free, it gets paid for with tax dollars. The issue is we haven't been collecting enough of them
1
A few points:
First, Just like health care, maybe our higher learning institutions need to examine why they need to charge so much for tuition. College costs have increased by a factor of 10 compared to the 1970’s when I attended. Have our campuses gone overboard to make the college experience similar to a 5-star resort?
Second, if a household has an income of $150k can they sacrifice that new car and larger home so that they can put away money from birth for their children’s education.
Third, can students work or delay their education by doing a stint in the military to help fund their education?
Seems like there are many choices / options out there that might provide funding.
Why wasn’t Amy Klobuchar included?
2
If everyone pays there fair share of taxes, everyone should have access.
2
If there's an income limit then it's a welfare program. Give it to everyone, it's becomes a right.
Hard truth is that if you can afford a private school, that's what you'll do, if anything for the benefit of a smaller class size. Not to worry Pete, the public colleges won't be overrun by millionaires' kids in search of a cheap deal.
4
Free college for all would only devalue the value of the college degree. It would not make people stop wanting to get a leg up on one another, after all, everyone else is their competition, and this would lead to graduate school being the new college, which - in order to make up some of the revenue lost by colleges- would be made to be far more expensive than it is now, resulting in a tinier slice of the population being able to afford the leg up that was once college and is now a graduate degree. African Americans and poor people who get scholarships for athletics would suffer. No longer would we be able to get a cheaper means of attaining elite status through excellence in extra-curricular.
Furthermore, the potential earnings of those who would require more schooling would decrease due to the more years they would have to spend in schooling for the same leg up they would have received in the current system. If college is free we would all have to wait longer for that leg up, and many of us would never attain this leg up due to the closure of the alternative routes that were once presented to minorities like myself.
All three candidates are disappointing on this issue and show a very superficial level of thinking and abstraction in their approach. None have experience solving problems, only talking about bad solutions. Bloomberg is an entrepreneur. That is what entrepreneurs do. Forget these cosmetic semantics. Let’s get a problem solver, realist and pragmatist in the wh
@nickgregor
If your argument were right, free public schools would have destroyed our economy long ago.
2
I do agree with Buttigieg's idea that millionaires can pay for their own college, but his cutoff too low. Depending on the cost of living in your area, a combined income of $150,000 isn't a family that can easily send their kids to college, especially if they have more than one.
He should probably raise his cutoffs by another 50-100 grand, IMO.
1
Not everyone needs or wants a college degree. I’d be willing to allow tax dollars to pay for trade schools. We need more electricians, welders and plumbers, not programmers or philosophy majors.
72
@J Marie Bernie's plan covers trade schools.
20
Exactly, @J Marie. The skilled trades pay well and have far more utilitarian value for the larger society than the millions of non-specific bachelor degrees churned out every year.
When Buttigieg says, "College is not for everybody,” he is not only telling the truth but he is also appealing to tens of millions of non-college grads -- many of whom also voted for DJT.
I've taught hundreds of kids who have gone on to the most elite schools and I've also taught kids who have used the word "torture" to describe what a four year college program would mean to them.
It's this latter group that needs government attention and if you're trying to win over the preponderance of the non-college crowd who voted for Trump, then appeals to that group should be first on your list.
By shooting far left, Warren and Sanders are funneling primary voters and also general election votes directly to the surviving moderates ... Mayor Pete is the best of that lot and gaining momentum b/c the socialist Democrats have either misread the tea leaves or they are more concerned about spouting an ideology than winning an election.
Yes, Pete is young and lacking much life experience, but when it comes to political savvy he's either the wise old sage or the far left is incredibly self destructive. Take your pick.
4
@J Marie
Many community colleges gear their curriculums to training trade peoples and in NY State, we have BOCES that trains electricians, welders and plumbers. Community colleges are the new trade schools.
9
Why is this issue being presented front and center? There's not much use for a college education when our world is on the verge of one climate disaster after another. Do any of these candidates understand the snowball effect where things actually go from bad to extremely bad in a short time? There is not much future for anyone in a world that is not predictable anymore. Lets concentrate on the most serious issue of our time instead of trying to figure out every possible niche to get a few more votes.
15
@Bella To solve climate change we need more scientists and engineers, and we'll need every scrap of talent we can get. Removing barriers to college and maximizing our available talent is going to be critical in defeating climate change.
17
@Bella As a parent, if I did not feel so much panic to be able to save for kids' higher education, I think I could have lived a much more green life rather than pinching every penny. Making higher education accessible to all relieves many expenses that come with living in a society where so many people are anxious about the future. Maybe it would even ease the pressure of standardized testing.
The current method of financing higher education and the very expensive application process is not good for students and probably worse for the planet too.
11
@Bella
You say that as if it’s impossible for us to concentrate on more than one issue at a time. We can.
7
I have been teaching in the university system on both coasts for 30 years and one thing I've seen more often than you would imagine are students taking on costly and life-impacting loans only to waste their time in college. Make it free and that will compound. College prep and admission is seriously in need of over-haul. Many students wander into college that shouldn't have made the choice to come. Universities don't run on air. They need tuition to keep going so they are only too have to have I would say 30 to 40% of these rudder-less students running up a huge college loan for themselves that they have no idea will haunt them into they 40's. Free community colleges make sense. Free technical and trade schools make sense. Scholarships that are earned by will and high achievement make sense. Free college for all? I don't get it.
70
@Florence Agreed. I for one would not want students in my class who have paid nothing for the experience. If something is free, it is worth about that much. People complain about K-12 public education and how poor they are. We want to add Universities to that? Enlisting in the army was my ticket to college and when I arrived I took it very seriously. There is no such thing as a free lunch.
8
@Florence I don't understand your logic. Free college for all would eliminate students taking on massive debt that haunts them into their 40's. That's the point. Just because you think they are supposedly "rudder-less" does not mean that they don't deserve the chance to attend higher education.
13
@Liz
Students often attend college because it's the thing to do, or that their friends are going, or because "they're interested in...", or they don't know what else to do and they've been told college is a place to find out. I respect true vocation. The others need to finds themselves in another way, and not use (and abuse, I might add) the environment of higher education to do that.
5
It is striking that none of the candidates proposing free public higher education schemes are considering the likely impact of such schemes on private liberal arts colleges and universities. In Iowa, e.g., where such institutions are a sizable part of the higher education landscape, most such institutions would likely be devastated. And along with them the communities in which they are located. It is irresponsible to ignore this aspect of the problem.
Although I agree with Buttigieg that not all want to go to college, and not all are college material, I still agree that public college should be an extension of our tax payer funded primary schooling. Just because it is offered as an extension doesn't mean every child in America will either want to go to college or qualify to go to college.
We fall in the income category where tuition would be government provided yet I think it is grossly unfair to limit this by income. Most higher income Americans don't send their children to public colleges but they do pay taxes like the rest of us. Limiting the government tuition coverage to public schools limits the cost of the education. If parents prefer their child attend elitist Ivy League colleges then the parents should fund that tuition. It is basically no different than sending one's child to a private primary school. No one keeps their children from attending primary public school, no town charges the wealthy tuition for their child to attend primary public schools. Why shouldn't a wealthier family benefit from their tax dollars if they or their child choose to attend a public college? This pitting the marginally financially comfortable against the rest is just contributing to the bitter divisions we're seeing in our country.
Another point is that $150K may be a lot in South Bend, IN but it's not in high cost of living states like MA, NJ, NY, CT, CA, etc. where $150K is just basic middle class. It isn't a one size fits all.
1
This is where Buttlieg loses me. If you’re going to raise my taxes, significantly by the way, let me participate along with everyone else in the shared resources. It’s what’s fair.
12
Buttigieg’s claim Sanders’ plan is “elitist” falsely attempts to make his own much narrower plan look more populist; in contrast, Biden’s claim Sanders “goes too far” is an honest perspective. Education after high school is essential for middle class jobs. Sanders’ plan applies to public trade schools and community colleges, used by the working class and veterans. Taxes on wealth will cover much of the cost. Covering professional class and wealthy kids, even though most go to private schools, makes education a universal right, not a privilege. Buttigieg made a name for himself honestly admitting in the first debate he had made mistakes with the black community in South Bend. Now that he smells victory, he’s taking the low road. When voters catch him in a lie one time, his honest, young, fresh-face mask will fall and he’ll dive in the polls.
2
Buttigieg either doesn't know that means-tested programs get little sustained political support, or he's using that fact to make for a weak program because, like lots of center-right Democrats, he actually hates the idea.
It's the inverse of the right's American Puritanism -- that unbearable conviction that somebody, somewhere, might be eating an unearned steak provided by "my tax dollars", which is enough to ruin any right-thinking person's life, apparently.
Real liberals, meanwhile, do not develop gastric disorders at the prospect of a millionaire's daughter going to South Jersey State Agricultural College for free.
1
@jrd I'm sorry but parents who make 250k per year have no business geting a taxpayer-financed bailout package.
The idea that on 150k you can easily pay for college is ludicrous. And god forbid you have more than one kid in college at the same time.
We either have a society that functions properly or we do not.
101
@Dan B As a person who makes more than $150K and has two children in college, I agree. I know that wages are stagnated and that I am much better off than many folks, but I still have massive grad school loans that I am paying off, and tuition and housing for two children (in public colleges), is about $70k per year.
13
@Dan B They're talking about community or public colleges though. Aren't those a LOT cheaper, and therefore more within reach of $150K income? Of course private institutions at $60K a year (or more now?) are impossible to pay for with $150K income.
1
@JoPi Yes, they're less than $60K. But the cost of attendance at flagship public colleges in many states is around $30K, even for in-state residents. Look it up.
So let's say at best, after taxes the $150K person takes home $90k, paying a third of that to college is a massive hit, and then if you have a senior and a freshman? Look out.
6
An income limit or sliding scale is a vote killer to me. I don’t even have a kid anymore. It should be based on aptitude. Maybe everyone gets first two years free. That would include trade schools and Jr colleges.
3
How about ‘free trades school’ for every one?
Learning a trade is a guarantee of financial success. Ever tries to get something added or changed at home? Contractors make a killing. Electricians, plumbers, etc, we cannot live without them. And they make a fine profit too.
But Liberal Arts college, Gender Studies, Greek Philosophy, etc, those should never be free. These studies do not result in a livable paycheck or an education any one would consider when you attempt to get a job, therefore you do these as a choice, not as a tool to improve yourself. There is no reason why these waste of time and resources should be free.
An education should be the tool you get to improve your lot in life, people need help with that. Other than that, other schools that do not result in you making a living from your education should be completely optional, and not something the rest of us get taxed for so you can go discover your confused sexuality on my dime. That money can be spent in things that benefit us all, not just Liberal Art college professors.
Buttigieg's plan is terrible. My household would be just barely frozen out by it and we are by no means wealthy. So first of all it's unfair, and second of all you will not have broad-based support for it.
I would support a plan for everyone but if it's a plan that specifically leaves my family out in the cold, no thanks. This is the very reason why Social Security and Medicare apply to everyone, among other similar types of plans. You won't have a strong consensus in favor when picking the haves and have-nots within it.
Frankly I think Buttigieg is smart enough to know this and his position is in fact a crass political move. It's stuff like this that makes me wonder if he is trustworthy--obvious political talents aside.
1
Not sure I favor free tuition for all, but I will say that a ceiling based on income is unfair to coastal Americans. A Midwesterner making $149,000 is much more well-off than a Californian making $151,000.
4
College is not for everyone. I think that everyone should have a bit of skin in the game. The current debt levels that students are taking on are ridiculous. But requiring everyone to pay a few thousand dollars a year for college is not unreasonable. That is not an unfair amount of debt to have people take on, and the amount can ramp up very gradually so that the wealthy still aren't paying a lot, but are paying a bit more (say a cap of $10,000 a year).
Readers of the NY Times are by nature highly educated. But there are countless good people in America who don't want or need college, so the amount that they are subsidizing those who do want college should be controlled. A small contribution like the one I suggested would do this and make sure that those who are going to college are truly motivated to be there, rather than just effectively getting welfare and delaying becoming an adult.
3
We need doctors—and more doctors. We don’t need more sociology majors. This doesn’t mean Sociology majors and Creative writing majors don’t have value. It just means it would be foolish to require taxpayers to have to pay to educate them. We should pay for what we need, not what we want.
Make trade school education and updates, for tech changes, free also. Taxes should pay for this and the better off will pay a lot more-maybe even some tech people who strike it rich.
Why should college be free for anyone? You have to have a legitimate basis for that. If a college education is a fundamental right (which I don't think it is ) than it should be provided for everyone. If you can create classes of people who are excluded from access to such rights than every group who is currently disfavored can be targeted. How about free for everyone but: smokers, football players, registered Republicans, smart Asians, students who come from metropolitan areas of more than 5 million people, etc.
College is ridiculously expensive and I can certainly see a case for reducing the cost of going to college, but college should not be free for anybody (unless they have earned merit scholarships that cover the entire cost.) People appreciate things more when it is not outright given to them. Plus, I do not see how revenue from millionaires and billionaires alone would raise enough money to pay for everyone to go to college free. And even if it did raise enough money, is it even moral for someone to get a total free ride just because they are not a millionaire or a billionaire? I don't think so.
Mayor Pete understands reasonable approaches that won’t alienate. That’s why he is the best Democratic candidate and best alternative to President Trump.
First, note that Buttigieg uses a right wing think tank, the Urban Institute to back up his arguments. that well to do families would benefit more than middle class and poorer families. (That of course would be true if you use the current incomes of families sending children to college!) Second, note that at least in Warren's case we are talking about free tuition for public universities. Buttiegieg, backed up by Wall Street funding in effect endorses a system reflecting the same basic inequalities where the really well off 250K + families send their kids to universities, leaving millions of middle class families stuck with rising tuitions to fend for themselves. And who today can seriously argue that post high school education shouldn't be a universal right when the income gap between a high school vs 4 year college degree is nearly 20k/year (many sources). How do we pay for it? With Warrens's about time claw back 2% of the trillions the super rich have robbed the nations in tax avoidance AND the rising productivity from more well educated people. (Remember in 2016 Trump told us he loves the poorly educated.)
This issue is a prime example of why Pete Buttigieg is doing so well: He's undercutting Warren/Sanders by staking a more viable and, importantly, popular position. This is why the knives are out for him.
Many commenters have noted that "the kids of millionaires don't go to state school." This is disingenuous or naive. Having a net worth of 1 million dollars does not equate with fantastic wealth, but it does connote ability to pay. I went to a state university and there were PLENTY of students whose parents had a net worth of at least 1M. Kids of millionaires most definitely attend state schools. And they or their parents should pay for it, not the rest of us.
I don’t buy the idea of “free” college. Reduce the cost based on need, okay. But when people don’t have skin in the game, they don’t properly value what they are getting. And not everyone should, nor needs to, go to college. There are many people in “the trades” doing quite well, sometimes better than “college-educated” folk. Future electricians, plumbers, mechanics, hairstylists, chefs...they don’t need college to succeed, but they do require training to gain the skills needed for these jobs. Why shouldn’t they also receive “free” or discounted tuition for the type of educational programs they need?
2
Prior to the Reagan administration, four-year public college tuition was affordable to most middle-class students and their families. But the Reagan administration led and encouraged an effort in the states to do away with most tax-supplemented higher education incentives in this country. IMO, this led to much of the polarizing income-inequality problems we have today. It seems that now only wealthy people (or their wealthy parents) can now afford to pay the higher tuition for a four-year college degree, or students go into crippling debt with student loans.
2
It is outrageously unfair and regressive to have general tax dollars supporting institutions whose primary purpose is to turn out graduates with higher earning power than the general public. Those graduates get 90% of the benefit of that education; they should be paying for at least 90% of the cost.
How to do that fairly and without burdensome debt? Let's look to the UK, Australia, and to a pilot program at Purdue University. Students sign a contract that pledges a set fraction of their income above a lower limit for a set number of years after completion of studies. At Purdue the fraction of income and the number of years depends on the major, because different majors earn different amounts on average, so if you choose Art History you'll have to pay a bigger fraction for longer than you do if you're a Chemical Engineer (which is fair, as long as the system is transparent).
The upper middle class are not entitled to free college for their kids. Nobody should be. College is tremendously lucrative to graduates, but it is expensive and does represent an investment of time and money. By signing a contract upon entry, students will be aware of what that investment is. Those same contracts will be an incentive for colleges to cut costs, reduce dropouts, and for students to choose good public schools rather than pricey private social clubs as the place to earn their degrees.
Public tax dollars should be for the poor and the sick, not those on the path to privilege.
1
I'm not the biggest fan of either Sanders or Warren but in this case they are right. College is an extension of high school. Public colleges should be free for all. You want to go to a private college? Do it on your nickel. That said, this issue will be decided by the respective state legislatures. The feds can influence this by assisting with public college tuition in those states where it's not free but this raises other issues regarding unequal treatment of the various states. As for Buttigieg, his tenure with McKinsey which he won't discuss leaves us in the dark as to his real thoughts, but McKinsey's orientation is around productivity and cost savings. Paying public college tuition, even in the case of middle class families, can be a challenge to afford without student loans which put young people under the yoke of crushing debt.
1
I don't know why the candidates aren't focusing more on Community Colleges. First of all Mr. Buttigieg is right when he says not everyone chooses to go to college. I would add or is suited for college, but everyone could benefit from vocational training and two year certificate programs. If we made two year programs affordable people could get job training or get their gut courses out of the way without it costing a small fortune.
It would take an investment in the community college system but I would rather see that money spent in local economies than funneled into the so called top tier schools.
Speaking of fortunes: while an income limit may or may not be a good idea, $150k is way too low. That may be a king's ransom in South Bend but here in the Bay Area not so much. Good luck to you if you're trying to raise and educate kids on $150k around here.
3
If a person is not ready after high school, and the government should aid post high school, then community colleges, technical training, even apprentice work should be subsidized along with four year colleges.
That and income limits have the same idea: avoid limiting government aid to people destined for elite status regardless.
I’m a great believer in the Law of Unintended Consequences. By making college free, do we risk devaluing the product?
If I have to pay something, I value it more than if it’s handed to me on a platter. If students don’t have some skin in the game, it will not have the perceived value to anyone.
5
@CEH
So on that basis we should charge for K-12? And all roads are toll roads? And you pay the police and fire departments every time you pick up the phone?
And I guess in Europe nobody values higher education?
Where do we Americans get these preposterous ideas of ours?
5
@jrd I’ve read a lot of thoughtful comments on this story and as a result, I’m coming around to the position of free public college for everyone.
It was pointed out by another reader that excluding groups breeds resentment and opposition. Prime example is SNAP benefits.
Social Security, for example, is a program which benefits everyone and it has universal support. For this to work, maybe free college for all who want it is the way to go. However I still believe in the Law of Unintended Consequences.
1
@CEH The answer to your question is "yes"
As someone who was a member of the last tuition free graduating class at Brooklyn College I can tell you that my classmates came from a wide variety of ethnic and economic backgrounds.
While some were from upper middle class professional families (doctors, lawyers etc.) most had parents who were teachers, cops, office workers, etc and some came from poor families from the city's worst neighborhoods.
The one group who was not represented as far as I know were the children of millionaires who tended then as now to go to the elite private schools. Had some bigshot Wall Street type decided to send his kids to CUNY however I see no reason why they should have had to pay tuition. Their family paid taxes to support the school after all. When someone pays for something that they can't take advantage of it creates resentment.
If universal education beyond secondary school is essential (and by that I include trade school and apprenticeship programs) for someone to live a decent life and for our country to compete in the world market then we should as a society foot the bill.
4
It has to be universal. The number of families making over 150,000 is not large enough to make much difference except to create a perception of unfairness. The program must apply to everyone regardless of income.
3
Look, I’m all for upper middle class and wealthy families to pay their fair share but come on. How can you expect people to pay more into a system that they don’t get to share the benefits from? In the end, if those people are so rich then they’ll send their kids to private school anyway. If they decide to send them to public school then they should get they same benefits as everyone else.
4
We put away $4k per year, per child in a 529 for 15 years. That is $8k after taxes every year for 2 children. It takes $12k to get that $8k.
Each child now has about $90k now. You would think that would have covered all the bases. It does not. That will barely cover 3 years of in-state tuition/room/board/fees. At $160k a year, a family needs to put away 7% of their gross income every year to cover 75% of in-state tuition. The child still leaves with $30k in debt (good-bye house down payment for 10 years) So I ask, how can doing everything right (i.e. saving a large percentage for college) still leave a well earning family, short on tuition? Should we have saved more? How can anyone earning 45k a year send their child to college? Worthy children of poor families have no chance. Colleges have become black holes for money. Rather than throwing money blindly at them (via tuition subsidies) maybe colleges should rein in their spending on things not related to learning. More commuting to college and less living on campus. UConn wants $1k per month for a room that houses 2 people and is the size of a prison cell. Replete with concrete walls and cockroaches. The units were built in the 1940's. I lived in one. It cost $125 per month in 1978. Nothing has changed but the price. If college is as essential today as a high school diploma was in the 50's, then we should find a way to minimize that cost as much as possible. For everyone.
13
I pay over around $1200 a semester (plus hundreds in books) for my son to attend a Community College. We are doing it this way because it is less expensive than the 4 year, and we can transfer credits over when he exhausts the classes at his current school and moves over to a 4 year University to finish up his bachelors. I was a single mom through much of my older son's college years and he worked through college to help pay. He'll graduate from a University this month, but it will leave him in about $35,000 of debt. This is after I paid thousands in tuition, and he applied all the Pell grant money he could get. It this how you think our children can get ahead? Give us a break. If we want to see our country educated and successful, we need to do something about this. I'm sorry, but the argument that people wouldn't appreciate money to help pay for education is absurd.
3
If you think we shouldn’t pay for rich kids’ education, shouldn’t we also make them pay for kindergarten through high school?!
Education is a public good and should be free for all. The simple solution is to tax accordingly.
3
In the same breath Buttigieg talks about university being "affordable" for everyone, while his opponents want it to be "free" for the wealthy.
"Affordable" and "Free" are very different words , and the vast majority of Americans shutter when McKinsey- billionaire pawns like Buttigieg use the term in regards to a necessary public service.
Buttigieg is grandstanding on this like everything else. Deep down I dont believe he really cares about anything but power. His "Douglas Plan" is a similar cringe worthy joke.
3
Free college?!? How about free trade school? We need people with skills. The labor shortage is in HVAC, electrical, mechanics and graduates get immediate employment opportunities. Big miss from the Dems to focus on college - as if that guarantees a job. Lol.
1
For years we've heard industries opine that the US doesn't have the trained work force they need to fill the vacancies in their businesses. Isn't it in our national interest to provide an educated workforce? Let the government pay for college and trade schools. It's for our benefit as a country in the 21st century.
1
What should be done is force the universities with HUGE endowments to use this money and reduce costs significantly. Either through tax code or other regulations we can not allow universities sitting on billions of dollars and increase tuition costs year over year.
3
This is, of course, a non-issue since millionaires generally don’t send their children to public universities, but it is illustrative of a crucial aspect of elite thinking.
The corporate media only entertains the notion of class consciousness when it pertains to the wealthy. When tax increases on wealth are proposed, it’s denigrated as “soaking the rich”.
But the right of the wealthy to avail themselves of the social programs that their politicians try to cut at every opportunity must be vigorously defended.
4
All this talk about 'means testing'. What about academic qualifications? Subsidies/full payment should be based on achieved levels of performance otherwise a lot of money will be tossed away as those who can't 'make the grade' drop out. And, being someone who lives in the NY Metro area, who ever said $150,000 was a lot of money to earn and then have to pay for the average public college education (which I understand can cost $60,000 and more)? There would need to be a regional sliding scale. Once again, a politician is inventing a 'talking point' to get attention without proper vetting.
7
Have any of the candidates said what happens to all the money saved in 529 plans if their free-college-tuition plans pass? Lots of people have detrimentally relied on the existence of those plans to save for their kids' college because they've been told, repeatedly, that college costs will continue to out-pace inflation in the coming decades. Seems to me parents who have done this should be permitted to convert those funds to Roth IRAs (or something similar) if college suddenly becomes free. Also, has anyone looked at what will happen to the small private colleges that are already teetering on the edge of non-existence if these plans pass? What happens to the people who work for those colleges? Will the public college systems grow enough to absorb them?
8
The funny thing about Bernie and Liz Warren they have both been paid by the student debt problem. By far the most egregious recipient of Student debt cash is Bernie Sanders via his wife and Burlington College where only 17% ever matriculated but almost everyone left with 35k in student debt.
Ironic that Bernie has demanded a student debt jubilee, and a demand that the tax payers payoff the debts that flowed to his summer home and his children's bought and paid for homes.
Jane Sanders used the student loan business like her own personal checking account. Lliz Warren made 13 million feeding off the student loan business. Do either of these candidate s want to repay the lucre they collected from desperate students ? I highly doubt it. Ask Bernie to donate to charity and he will laugh in your face and lecture you about how he doesn't believe in charity.
4
Butigieg is making a fake argument. The mega-rich don't send their kids to pubic universities. Means testing would probably cost more to administer than it saves.
9
@McGloin This. Surprised so few are talking about it. Having to arbitrate membership would in and of itself be a huge cost. One big way to eliminate the bureaucracy that so many decry is to offer universal programs that don't require deciding who's in and who's out.
2
If you want the best and brightest for America then America needs educational opportunities for every American, not just the best and brightest rich Americans. If your poor and a genius there are tremendous hurtles for you to make America great and the richest country in the world suffers because of it. Yes the top 1% poor smart kids get scholarships and are falsely brought up as examples that anyone can do it. But the bottom 99% are falsely labeled as lazy. Make America Great Again like the socialist program the GI bill and make College trade schools free to the children of richest country in the world
11
Free college for every student!! Of course!! Right after they get their guaranteed, automatic high school diplomas. Who cares if they can’t read or add 2+2, discriminating against them would signify that they’re not equal. OMG!! Sorry, but there has to be a mechanism that selects those who can succeed in college from those who will simply waste everyone’s money. Whatever the mechanism is, it should aid those who deserve aid.
8
@stevevelo That is what we have no more or less. If you deserve aid you get something, if you have good test scores and you shop around.
The issue is that the base prices are outrageously expensive. The cost has to be attacked first, throwing more money at the problem only makes it worse and more expensive. The medical industry is a prime example.
@Hugh G - don’t disagree, but WHY are costs so outrageously high??
@stevevel You're right, of course! Students will have to apply for acceptance to college, submitting their high school grades, etc. just as they do now. If, and only if, they are accepted, then their tuition will be free.
The Sanders/Warren plan for “free” college tuition for all is just more welfare for the rich. Period.
3
No single candidate will decide this issue by mandate. If there's legislative support, a bill will be proposed and negotiated. I don't get these arrows being fired by candidates (and their supporters) at one another. At this point, no one has final say.
The most common question in organizations these days is "What's the right number?" That's the system, that's politics. These fights over fine points at this point among the Democrats are ugly and destructive, and they need to stop. We are our own worst enemy.
31
@Chris Late . . .exactly! All these plans and such will all have to be adjusted, argued over and scrapped. Look at how long the Obama administration had to mess around with the health care plan, and it got a work over, because it did indeed have some problems. All this attention to plans seems to be a digression from what I think is the real issue: Who will be an ethical leader who can unite the country around making this a better, stronger country where we work out problems together and make compromises for the better good of the largest groups of people?
4
@mouseone Why are you both acting like A. Democrats aren't suppose to debate each other in a primary (just accept we all can't be friends in politics and stop trying) and B. That Obama didn't go out of his way to work with the GOP. It was his fault for thinking the GOP would not gut medicare. Pete and Liz would do the same.
Pete is not using “populist” rhetoric. He does not identify millionaires as complicit in college being unaffordable or call to make college less affordable to them. He’s just implying that college affordability isn’t relevant to them to illustrate the “common sense” nature of targeting college affordability.
24
In the 60s I went to the City College of NewYork. Free. Books and assorted goodies were the only things I paid for. More Nobel laureates have graduated from CCNY than any other public college in the United States.
How did they manage the fine faculty? The payroll? The general administration?
There are no miracles. There is only competence.
I’m for community college for everyone free. College admission discounted for CC graduates, and free college for those with high high school grades.
51
@David J I also graduated from public colleges in California in 1970. It was almost free. It was certainly affordable for a student with a minimum wage part-time job and a free bedroom with Mom and Dad. I do wish people would stop acting like this has never been done before.
21
@David J
Finally common sense on this issue.
It was done in NY before and it is currently being done here in Santa Barbara.
#1 Community College in the country is Santa Barbara Community College. It is FREE for our residents. After completing a two year degree or trade program, students have the option to transfer to our state university UCSB which is highly affordable.
It is a viable program and it works.
It is not based off of income limits. Community college should be free and seen as an extension of public school.
The high price of college is greatly attributed to inflated salaries for faculty and sports coaches.
States, such as CA and MI, have exceptional state universities, that are affordable.
4
@David J, I ,too, graduated from City College (in 1955). I and most of my friends at the time had no other choice. It was a great long-term investment for the country, as over the years we paid far more in taxes than if we had not gone to college.
3
Tuition isn’t the same as food stamps. Social democracies work in Europe because they benefit everyone. 150k isn’t the same in San Francisco as Omaha. AOC is absolutely right.
107
@Nadera Most of the U.S. electorate don't view themselves as being born in the wrong country or strive to catch up with their "betters" across the sea. The biggest argument for Sanders' point of view is a cringeworthy Europhilia that Pete rightfully identifies as a turn-off for voters.
4
@Nadera Social democracies don't provide free college education for all citizens, only the top students go.
5
@Hugh G
Sorry did I miss the part where Warren & Sanders said everyone should be admitted to college regardless of qualifications?
15
Anything free is not of value. Too many kids using tax payer help who do not have the ability. Make the system more fair. Prosecute the for profit on line snakes. Start in community colleges. The price should be fair to those who can succeed but not free. We are not all intellectually equal!
1
I was neutral on Pete Buttigieg but I now think of him as an entitled white privileged kid who’s never actually done anything in his life to reduce inequality and who has been obsessed since his birth about politics. What, if anything, does he actually stand for, other than another 4 or 8 years of Clinton or Obama like presidencies, the kind that built up inequalities too and brought us Trump, and turned away working class from the Democratic Party?
Elizabeth Warren knows what she is talking about here: she had to find solutions in her own life to find affordable childcare while studying for degrees with very little money, she actually suffered the plight of what we today call working class stress.
But mostly I resent Pete argument that Warren and Sanders are elitist and helping billionaires. As in, really, billionaires are sending their kids to state or public university? Really? They are not advocation paying into private learning institutions here, it’s pretty controlled.
What on earth has Buttigieg actually ever done for working class? I don’t really support Biden either but his argument is intellectually sound: free community college. I would have understood that argument.
7
so now we're expected to not only pay for wealthy peoples' kids to go to college but also those who spend "their" tuition on "studying" in europe or elsewhere overseas. give me a break.
3
If you want to understand the degree to which the candidates and journalists have greatly underestimated the administrative and ethical dilemma that issues like free healthcare or free tuition entail, here is a great example from the article text:
.......That’s because low-income students are likelier than high-income students to attend two-year colleges, and also because with need-based financial aid, they pay less tuition on average than high-income students.....
I love how nobody is paying attention to the ridiculous nature of these cost estimates. They assume that orphan Annie will continue to take out the $10,000 in a student loan and $15,000 in a 20-hour a week work study to reduce the burden on the government. Meanwhile, the millionaire's child that had $0 in financial need under the FAFSA form (therefore, not qualifying for the student work study or a subsidized loan) will get the entire tab paid for by the US taxpayer and assume none of the assistance obligations. Moreover, where does a University of Michigan or University of Virginia get their $20,000 a student (average) in assistance to provide their students????-- from donors who suddenly have to ask themselves, why should I donate my income to a university to pay toward students while others just rely on the government now picking up the tab. The whole system breaks down. Anyone who thinks that a new Fed program just has to "make up the difference" has failed Life 101.
6
Bernard and Warren's plan to use our tax dollars to pay for the college costs of the super-rich is an example of how blind they are.
I don't want to pay for some millionaire kid's education. Let them pay; they can well afford it.
Likewise, I want to keep my private healthcare insurance. So do 150 million other Americans.
Anyone who tells us that we must surrender it will not only lose the midwest but the general election.
31
@Simon Sez Congress crafts and passes healthcare legislation. What we have now is on a crash and burn trajectory. Changes are coming, in so many areas. The question is, will we get ahead of them, or allow ourselves to be steamrolled? Healthcare should not be for profit. There are many examples of arrangements that are both more effective and cost-effective than ours. We should not be afraid to learn from the experience of others.
10
@Simon Sez The super rich aren't going to public schools.
19
With such a me-first logic there is no way you can truly be a Democrat. Medicare for all basically will pass if there is enough of a collective sense of fraternity and looking beyond one circumstance.
As an aside I have yet to meet anyone who says they like their health insurance. You really love copay and deductible?
18
Pete Buttigieg would have far more credibility on his position that he doesn’t want the millionaires and billionaires kids to be funded for a social good if he weren’t taking their money and advocating for positions that benefit them.
The Pete Buttigieg of April who said Republicans would tar the Democrats as socialists no matter what they did is not the Pete Buttigieg of December who uses a Republican talking point to falsely attack his own party on deficits.
What’s changed since? Pete Buttigieg used to release the names of his bundlers in Q1 and he has stopped doing that since.
Also, Pete’s climate advisor served in the fossil fuel industry, his national policy director is a Goldman Sachs alum and Mark Zuckerberg has been advising Pete on hiring decisions (and God knows what else).
Pete needs to get transparent about his bundlers and open his large dollar donor events to the press so there is transparency on why his positions are evolving from what they were a few months earlier, other than for political opportunism.
Sanders and Warren fund college by taxing the rich. It’s a fiscally responsible proposal - they don’t bear gifts to the rich under the guise of fake populism.
11
If the feds raise taxes on wealth then Mayor Pete’s idea is moot. They’re already paying that way under Warren’s overall plan.
One of the objectionable features about New York's "Excelsior" program is that there is an income limit. As someone whose family is very slightly over that income limit, I'd like to let Mr. Buttigieg know that we are not millionaires, and that college tuition is going to hit our finances like Hurricane Sandy.
More broadly: we're not talking about Harvard. The harm from income disparity does not come from the fact that Joe's family makes 500 times what Bob's family does. Rather, it comes from the fact that Joe's family moves in circles that are entirely separate from Bob's. Bob can't afford health insurance, so every time his children are sick, he faces a wrenching decision that no one in Joe's circle has ever faced.
With this in mind, if scions of billionaire families wanted to go to a public college and mingle with those attempting to climb the socioeconomic ladder, they would be more exposed to the trials and tribulations of those not born in the billionaire class. Rather than giving billionaires another handout, it would in fact result in (some) billionaires voluntarily surrendering their privilege, and approaching the world like the rest of us.
10
It's disingenuous for Mayor Pete to imply a populist stance in his criticism of Sanders and Warren's plans. Pete's argument is not in any way about sticking up for those who don't want to go to college - it's about maintaining roadblocks. Mayor Pete is committed to the elite remaining elite. Full stop. That's his game.
I do wonder sometimes if Bernie and Liz think these things through before promising free stuff for everybody.
We already tax back a number of 'universal' benefits because we don't believe the 'rich' should benefit from them.
Guess what woke folks - we are already doing it.
2
Two things to think about.
1) What's the cost of creating and maintaining the system required to decided who makes enough or not enough to get free tuition. Will it be based on yearly income, value of assets.... etc? Once we factor in that cost, is it still cheaper to keep millionaires out?
2) Is education a human right? If it is, does that entail it should be free for everyone?
3
It is not true that “The reason why people aren’t going to college is because not everybody can afford to go to college.”
For some that is true but for many, they do not want to go to college. They would rather learn a trade, something that's often done through non-traditional educational structures like internships and journeyman training.
Further, the US higher-educational model is heretofore designed to allow everyone to start (to go to some college or university somewhere) and then to fail. Not everyone is suited, interested, or motivated to go to college.
One must ask what is the point of making higher education easily available to the masses? If it's a technically trained workforce you want, there are better more cost effective ways to achieve it.
6
As a retired professor from Stony Brook University, one of New York State's top-tier public education institutions, the old principle that public higher education should be free for those who pay taxes in a state still holds. We have a progressive income tax system where the wealthy pay more so why should they be singled out? It makes no sense except for Mayor Pete to draw another line between him and the progressive Democrats. Pete, as a graduate of an elite private university, Harvard [Disclosure: I'm a Yale grad.], is out of touch on this issue. Public universities have been underfunded for decades by both Democratic and Republican governors including Andrew Cuomo and his late father Mario. we don't need to add an income quota to admission standards that are already under attack on other grounds. It's time to fully fund public higher education, and as they do in Europe, make it free to all would qualify on academic, not income, grounds.
8
We act as if tuition free college is some wild plan imported from Mars. How quickly we forget that only a few decades ago there were free tuition colleges and many that charged only a nominal fee.
In the early 1960's one could go from junior college to graduate school in the California university system for about $200 a semester. The University of Wisconsin was accessible for similars costs.
Most notably, the City College of New York (later the City University of New York, CUNY) was founded as a "free academy" and was tuition free up until the early 1970's.
So as far as tuition free college is concerned, we've "been there, done that." Doing it again is simply recognizing education as a social investment that produces multiple dividends to society as a whole
A CUNY study showed that for every dollar spent subsidizing education the city got back four or five times as much in increased tax revenue on the increased income that comes with a degree.
In todays world where college education means the difference between economic opportunity and economic stagnation, free tuition makes even more sense.
And on income testing, Mayor Pete is wrong. We don't have different rates for most public services, like freeway tolls, bus fares or recycling fees.
The place for income differentiation is in a progressive tax system, not college tuition fees.
11
By opening schools to all, regardless of income, it becomes like public education. The truly wealthy will send their kids to private schools anyway, where they will pay tuition.
Makes free education part of citizenship, not a welfare program for the have nots.
34
My father could afford to send his nine children to college. He had three degrees and a comfortable salary and he and my mother were very thrifty. They had to be thrifty, with nine children.
But Dad made one stipulation: that I had to go a Catholic college. And even then, there were a couple colleges that were off the table because Dad thought they were too secular.
So, as a 17-year-old high school senior who was in honors classes and in the top ten percent of her class, if I didn't want to be burdened with debt, I had to choose amongst a few Catholic colleges. Even if I had applied to go to a state university, they would have asked to see my father's tax returns and I would have been given very little or no financial aid.
Mayor Pete - is that fair?
4
I recently traveled to Denmark, where I talked to a variety of people about the differences between their country and the U.S. They all agreed that one of the key components of their success is that all members of society contribute in the form of taxes, and all citizens benefit from social programs. This allows for social cohesion. Otherwise, you have the resentment which comes from one group feeling like another is benefiting at its expense. Interestingly, this was why many of them were unhappy about increasing immigration to their country. Rightly or wrongly, they felt that immigrants were taking advantage of the system.
25
Germany has largely free college education but:
No highly paid football coaches, fancy dorms or nice campus settings
Only ~ 1/3 of the eligible people go, the rest are sent to skilled training or other vocational schools. You have to really compete to get to a University
People don't value anything that they get for free, offering a college education to anyone who wants it is a waste of money. Some people need to be steered to skilled trades or other vocations that don't require a college education.
The most logical thing to do is to address the cost situation at the current educational set up now. 50 years ago it was much more affordable than it is now. Start by eliminating all of the athletic programs at any state univerity with a direction in the name.
18
I've been a community college teacher for over 30 years. I still believe in the mission of the community college movement as a uniquely American answer to many problems that confound other countries: lack of access to higher ed except for the elite, lack of a second chance or restart in life, the lack of a means for lower achieving students to transfer to a university, etc. The mission has become muddled by inept administrators, many of whom have never taught, who want to foist an array of ill-conceived, expensive guidances upon faculty, making the colleges top heavy and expensive.
I don't think making it free is the solution; people don't value as much things that are just given to them. I teach ESL to immigrants, who pay only $25 in tuition. Most take advantage of this and really try, but there is a notable percentage who attend only sporadically, don't turn in work, fail repeatedly. Perhaps if they had a little more "skin in the game" they would try harder. (Though to be fair, many are juggling jobs, families, and school).
As a counter point, I also teach international students whose parents pay an unsubsidized tuition of thousands of dollars. Many of these students exhibit the same behavior--laziness, lack of interest, repeated failure. This is really just a different face of the same problem. For these children of wealthy parents, college IS free.
We need GI Bill-like programs, national service, scholarships, grants, and low but not free tuition.
8
I don’t generally disagree with you but be careful throwing broad judgements into your analysis, as in “people don’t value what they get for free”.
When it comes to elite education you are plain wrong. Wether in Europe: Cambridge University, École Polytechnique or École Normale Supérieure are essentially rivals for Stanford or Harvard and are more or less free. And I can tell you these institutions are very respected.
But in the US too: rich kids don’t pay themselves for access to Ivy League universities. Their parents or their trust fund does. Nobody disrespect these schools.
4
I am beginning to think that many of the proposals put forth by Democratic candidates address the symptoms of critical issues but not the causes. Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems that policies implemented by past and current Republican administrations create the problems, and rather than fundamentally fix them Democrats are trying to patch them with a band aid while Republicans stick their heads in the sand and claim there is nothing wrong.
For me, some basic questions are:
Why is a college education so prohibitively expensive when compared to 30 years ago? (Are tax policies to blame? Diverting public money from public schools to charter schools? States diverting or changing funding sources?)
Why is medical care much more expensive now and unaffordable for many people? (Is it the cost of new technology? The way tax dollars support research? Patent laws?)
Why isn’t environmental pollution being addressed? (Is it the gutting of environment regulations? Tax breaks and incentives bestowed on oil companies?)
Why do so many Americans get stuck in debt and can’t afford housing? (Is it income inequality due to Republican income and corporate tax changes? Is it the union busting started by Regan? It is the federal minimum wage increase that has been blocked by Republicans?)
Rather than accept the causes of these problems as a given, we need to reverse the clock and rescind many of the laws that created them in the first place.
5
All three candidates are wrong on this issue. If a student doesn't have skin in the game, they will likely not care about their academic performance. I am a college professor and I've already seen what loan packages do. young students don't understand what they will be paying back when it's all over with and they often don't seem to care about the classes they're sitting in. Democrats need to forget about this issue. Or we'll be looking at another Trump victory
3
I replied to that. When it comes to elite education, your comment about people not valuing what they get for free is plain wrong. It’s very hard to get into elite schools on merit. You may not pay in cash but you will pay in effort and sweat and talent.
1
@R You're talking about elite schools. What about the 99% That's what I'm talking about.
1
Setting a single income cap figure nationally is problematic. Setting it at $150k is misguided. With higher incomes generally comes higher expenses. It costs more to live where you can make more.
There's quite a bit of debate about whether the "millionaires and billionaires" need this assistance. Fine, exclude them. If we must have a single national cap, set it at $1 million.
11
I'm with Pete on this one, primarily because their is a finite amount of tax money that can be extracted from anyone, including the wealthy -and an infinite number of uses to which it could be put (universal access to healthcare, climate change, infrastructure, etc.). Taking any of that tax money and using it to sponsor wealthy kids' college is nowhere near the top of the list. Will some resent the program because they don't directly benefit? Sure, just as some resent every social program that redistributes wealth. But of course we all benefit from a society where opportunity is equal and everyone has a chance at success.
2
@Jeff they aren’t advocating for paying for Harvard and Columbia. The rich will still send their kids to private schools. And on the off chance some billionaire decides to send their kid to U of A or whatever, who cares? If they paid their fair share of taxes then they paid that tuition already many times over. Caps build resentment. Is 149k really different from 151k?
4
Yeah,sure. I'm all for free college ... provided every citizen in the country with a college degree gets reimbursed for their undergrad, associate, trade school or whatever schooling.
Heck, my college degree is long paid for, but I wouldn't mind the cash now and my house needs a new roof among other things.
I know we're not supposed to mention the Russian/Republican Asset from Hawaii also running for president, but her "free college" plan is far more inclusive calling for monies also to be available for people right out of high school who want to start their own business, instead of getting just another degree. I'll take her idea over these three any day.
Historically some of the nation's most successful companies were started by people without college degrees. Company founders, at the time, certainly would have appreciated some free cash to help make their start-ups go forward faster.
6
If you have more than $150,000 and bright kids, most likely you are sending them to private school which will not be covered by Bernie and Elizabeth's plans. Only publicly funded schools would allow this provision.
Think of the competition to private schools by providing free tuition to public schools. The privates most likely would be forced to compete with this large pool, thus lowering costs to fill their campuses.
Furthermore, the masses would be educated. Currently, over 50% of U.S. citizens cannot read on an eighth grade level. How very sad. Investing in education will help the income and wealth inequality gap, provide much needed innovation to solve our biggest crisis, climate change, and lift millions out of poverty into the middle class (remember, the middle class should be the backbone of a society).
There was a time when only the rich and influential put their kids in school to be educated and become our future leaders. It's time to level the playing field and allow for all to have this opportunity. Trade schools, traditional universities and colleges, and all other schools that provide an education to make one a better, more prosperous person will lift all boats.
The time has come!
13
@Sue Salvesen I am not sure why everyone seems to think that people earning more than $150,000 will not send their children to public schools. Here in the Bay Area, everyone I know with kids in that income bracket has sent their children to a University of California school, or has seriously considered doing so. That said, I think making public universities nearly free for all who are academically qualified is a good idea. Charging a nominal fee so that students have skin in the game and would not be interested in becoming perpetual students would be a good idea. (Cal Berkeley used to charge around $400 a semester in the 1960s I believe.) The devil will be in the details. How to make public universities almost free without encouraging spiraling spending by the schools.
3
@Guesser I agree. $150K doesn't cover private schools for a couple or three kids. I'd say 75% of my colleagues (I am attorney) send their children to state schools.
I agree with universal free public college. Besides the fact that it will be more popular and politically durable over time you also save on administrative costs. How much money does it cost to do all the work of ensuring that people meet the income thresholds and determine who qualifies for what? Lots of paperwork and verifications. Do parents income count or not? What if parents don’t support their kids or won’t provide their income info? What happens to the kids with no parental help who struggle to complete all the paperwork by the appropriate deadlines? Let’s keep things simple, free and open to all.
24
At the least there must be means tested interest free loans.
1
Clearly Pete doesn’t have college age kids!!! Both Bernie and Liz know exactly the took it takes to put kids through college when they have done everything right, worked hard made them grades got into good colleges. Now these same brilliant kids are saddled with tuition loans. They have no hopes of ever owning a home (and we tell them its not worth the headache lawn maintenance snow plow etc etc). They have no hope of having kids or even adopting because they know their kids will face the same problems..all over again. America never learns lessons.
17
The fact that the wealthy don’t generally send their children to public colleges and universities, makes this a non-issue, but it gives the corporate-media an opportunity to burnish Buttegieg’s moderate image, so a whole article is devoted to something of minimal importance to voters.
Just as the establishment of public universities in the post-war era fueled the innovation that made our country great (back when higher education was affordable), free public universities could provide another boost to our country’s economy and well-being.
Who would argue against the prospect of a new generation of intellects focused on the challenges of renewable power generation, robotics and other areas of great need?
But apparently, corporate America does not have those concerns very high on their agenda.
16
Voters don’t (as you said right off the top). Why wouldn’t corporate America want the employee/employer dynamic entrenched to the point of socializing lucrative specialized training?
1
@Big Barka Voters economic concern are a bit broader than the topic at hand.
"Why wouldn’t corporate America want the employee/employer dynamic entrenched to the point of socializing lucrative specialized training?"
Why would they when they can avail themselves of talent educated abroad? And obviously, the brain power they need can be harvested at private universities.
2
@Ed Watters : Low-cost college predates World War II. The land grant colleges in the Midwest had very low tuition when my father attended a state teachers' college and the University of Minnesota in the 1930s.
1
History shows us that the only social programs that are durable and gain widespread support are those that are open to everyone equally—Social Security and Medicare. AOC, Warren, and Sanders are right. Create a solid social safety net and make it equally open to all Americans. This is the only way forward.
71
@617to416 , it appears that you are half right. Social Security and Medicare are widely supported because they did NOT replace any existing benefits by the public. There was no safety net in the 1940s and no state or NGO stepped in later as the government had it covered.
The current proposals need to be enacted in a far more complicated world. Millions of Americans make a good wage working in private health and insurance industries; while public universities have mastered charging a high tuition to provide the world's large army of "administrators overseeing student welfare" and learned to gain billions in donations from alumni to assist the less wealthy in paying tuition.
The new universal proposals do not arrive in a vacuum and the chaos that results will be ugly. If you think Obama care did not last long wait until the voters strike back at the (still very unlikely) prospect of a Senate voting in a universal plan. This is all pie in the sky and why I will be voting for the progressive with a head on his/her shoulders in Buttigieg.
1
@DoctorRPP - You might find this hard to believe, but I think few people believe that the folks " working in private health and insurance industries" should have a make work job whose main purpose is to drive up health care costs.
Similarly the main purpose of world's large army of "administrators overseeing student welfare" is should not be a make work program whose main purpose is to drive up the cost of higher education.
Surely we can find better things for these fine folks to do.
9
Buttigieg is very dishonest and not a friend of the working class. It now turns out that his social programs will likely all be means tested. So what choice will people really have?
While we are on the topic, his healthcare public option plan will be means-tested too? Best way to ensure lack of popular support and a republican onslaught.
Buttigieg: time to show us your plans in detail and stop posturing on other campaign’s ideas for political gains.
11
I'm a recent college grad and one thing that has erked me is that while Pete says not everyone goes to college I believe he is ignoring the fact that most don't go because they can't afford it. For many of the people I grew up with that was exactly the case even when we tried saving up all our money from jobs in high school. I worked five nights a week throughout all of high school and during the day in the summer and I couldn't afford going to my public university without taking out loans. A friend of mine who lives in New York's parents are both teachers and collectively they make over 100k a year. From what he told me they're just scraping by because of where they live as the cost of living is so high. By making the program means tested not only are you cutting out large swaths of the middle class, you're making that class divide more noticable and when people view a program as essentially being welfare our history has taught us that conservatives will fight to dismantle it. The reason K-12 became free for everyone is because it was necessary to have an educated populace. As most centrists like Pete want to give everyone a "choice" in terms of getting medical care shouldn't Americans all have the right to choose to go to college without crippling debt?
One last thing is that had I chose to go to a trade school and become a carpenter or plumber like some of my relatives guess whose modest plan that isn't for millionaires wouldn't cover it?... Pete. Whose does? Bernie.
42
@Max, so you think Pete plans to ignore trade school? South Bend has made a name for itself in supporting the apprenticeship / community education route to employment. Pete is a hard charging, policy wonk that will almost certainly move in most of these directions. He does not have decades experience giving speeches and achieving nothing on the ground. Moreover, no universal plan is going to be approved by the US Senate in Bernie's lifetime!!! Anyone who thinks Bernie is the route to implementing one of the largest new program's in American history..... has not read much history.
3
Pete just lost me on this one.
The reason that there's a student debt crisis in this country is because middle class students don't qualify for aid other than loans. Low income students get extra aid. I know from experience, I was one myself. Upper class students can afford college as it is. It's the middle class that's at a disadvantage, not getting enough aid and yet not being able to outright afford it.
Access to higher education should be a right in the "greatest nation on Earth", especially if it wants to maintain that title. As with so many other measures of social and economic wellbeing, the US has fallen behind.
Be aware, Republicans oppose free access to education because an educated populace is harder to fool and harder to control.
80
@D , Buttigieg is proposing, what if implemented, would be the most revolutionary Federal act for higher education (largely a state responsibility) in US history. It has a small chance (compared to universal programs with no chance) at passing the rural-(read Republican-controlled) America controlled Senate. If by a miracle we get it through, your reaction is that it should never be attempted, because those making $150,000 per year would have to rely on public university endowments for their kids financial aid.
2
@D The reason is that there is a student debt crisis is that there was easy access to loans without credit checks which allowed schools to raise tuition to very high levels and not lose any students.
Throwing more money at the problem only will increase the prices the schools charge the government/taxpayer.
The cost at the universities has to be attacked first. You could easily do this by eliminating all loans, when they Universities don't have any paying customers they will need to react and figure out how to educate at a price their customers can afford.
2
It should be free for poor not free for ALL.
7
No it should be free for all poor and all working class citizens. Billionaires don’t send their kids to public college anyway. But I also want the program to have wide popular support because otherwise it will never hold against a republican onslaught.
I am with Warren and Bernie on this and so should you if you want this to hold.
4
Bernie - I dislike billionaires. There shouldn’t be any but I’ll pay for their kids to go to college.
Warren: Yes, whatever Bernie says but I’ll make it sound bright and shiny.
Buttigieg: Excuse me?
9
@ArtM As if a billionaire is going to send his/her child to a publicly funded school.
8
@ArtM you got it wrong. Kindly visit Canada New Zealand Australia and ask them how their kids get a college education, for free, mostly. Only in America do kids carry albatross like weights of college loans around their necks for their entire adult lifetimes. And if they went to medical or dental or law schools, forgetaboutit!!
10
Why does it matter?
1
"A new policy debate is brewing between the left wing of the Democratic presidential field and Pete Buttigieg, a more moderate candidate, over eliminating public college tuition — and the dispute has scrambled the usual rhetorical lines."
Why is this policy clash characterized as a left wing vs. moderate debate? Much of Western Europe has a free tuition, presumably because students' parents and their political rulers don't want to burden their future leaders with oppressive debt. Was this a left wing conspiracy or just plain, old fashion sound planning and common sense?
21
The most obvious reasons why all programs must be universal are quite simple: by separating Americans into those deserving and those undeserving, we are further dividing this country; and unless a program is available to all, cynical politicians will try to play some voters against others in order to dismantle the entire thing. That's why Medicare is much, much more popular than Obamacare.
On a different note: I find it curious how Buttigieg is criticizing Bernie et al. for being too generous to the rich. I am sure his secretive billionaire backers in Silicon Valley and beyond are giving so generously to him, because they are opposed to preserving the privileges of the rich. War is peace, and peace is war.
25
@David
Nonsense.
Free eventually becomes a commodity.
Look at so many of our public schools.
Mayor Pete is a Conservative/Democrat.
Conservatives like class division.
America needs unity, our country thrives when we are equal.
Spiritually, educationally, compassionately.
God, I love this country when we live up to American ideals.
16
@s.whether
I love our country. Period.
@s.whether
I love our country. Period.
@s.whether, thank you for standing up for my human rights. I am one of those multi-millionaires that Buttigieg is attacking and greatly appreciate those who would put an end to his means-testing efforts. I have the first of 4 kids that will start college in the coming year and why should I pay for something that is a right (public education!). Just this past winter I sold one of our boats to try and prepare for the kids college costs. As this happens across the country, it hurts the common man working in the yacht industry and undermines our basic freedoms.
3
Free college? No. How about price controls on the greed of college and university administrators and boards of control?
5
Nowadays college is high school. Government funded public college, and government subsidized private college and trade and vocational schools for non-college kids makes some sense.
6
@MIKEinNYC , so in a nutshell, you think both sides of the argument are correct. Would be great to hear your views on the question of whether millionaires should pay or benefit for this new program?
When my grandfather went to public school, it went as far as the 8th grade (K-8). It served him well, he retired Comptroller of Buick. When my parents went to public school, it went to the 12th grade (K-12) and they did well, also. When I graduated in 1960, college was just becoming necessary. We were beginning to shift from graduating f high school, getting a job, and getting married to going to college. That was 60 years ago. Since that time we have invented the computer and walked on the moon. Today you cannot get a job without college. It is long past time that we move fro, K-12 to K-16. A college degree is not just a nice thing to have, It is an investment in our nation's future. It has to be free for all. It has to be part of our public education. Will the rich use it? I seriously doubt it. They want Ivy League. But, their taxes will pay for it, too, and they should have the right.
32
@Ken Sayers
"Today you cannot get a job without college.
Elitist, much? My husband earned a very good living in the trades with no college degree but a boat load of basic "smarts" and a lot of ambition. He was college material but couldn't afford to attend. He got a job in the HVAC trade and provided a comfortable life for me, a stay at home Mom, and our five children. We built a custom home in 1985, owned new cars, motorcycles and dined out regularly. All on a single income. And all without a college degree but with a lot of mechanical aptitude. He was service manager of a multi-million dollar home heating oil company for 14 years.
In comparison my childhood friend attended one of the premier business schools in MA. AT 60 he lost his comptroller job and has not been able to find a job since. Another friend, an accountant, lost his job this spring at age 62 and has no been able to find meaningful employment since.
Yet my husband with just his lowly high school education is now making a low 6 figure income and has been offered a teaching position in the company he works for.
Another friend owns a highly successful automotive repair business. It take weeks to get an appointment for a basic oil change. His wife is employed by the business. They have a custom built home in a bordering CT town. Another childhood friend has his own electrical company. He employs several electricians and has a custom built home in the same town. All done without the "necessary" college degree.
@Ken Sayers Could it be that K-8, K-12, and K-16 are just the dumbing and watering down the standards?
no college should be tuition free (unless someone qualifies for a need based scholarship)...all students/families need to have some "skin in the game"...however, community and public colleges should be much more affordable (say, tuition/books limited to what a student could earn working a summer job)...also, canceling student debt is simply an absurd idea...lower interest rates on student loans, maybe, but Warren will have a tough time getting 100% of Democratic votes if she keeps proposing such plans (as well as Sanders with his canceling Medical debt)...please stop all this "free" stuff...
7
@Jim
One’s future employability and earning capacity isn’t “skin in the game”?
5
My great concern is that the Democratic presidential candidates are competing to see who can make the most woke and socialist promises:
Free college tuition. Medicare for all, including illegal immigrants. College loan forgiveness. Reparations for blacks and gays. Guaranteed basic income. Federal job guarantees. Federally mandated school busing to achieve integration. Green New Deal (eco-socialism). Voting and early release for prisoners. Open borders.
All the fabulously wealthy US individuals and corporations together do not have the many trillions of dollars needed to pay for these goodies year after year, and even Bernie Sanders has admitted that taxes would have to be raised on the middle class to pay for Medicare for All, not to mention the additional trillions needed for the other items. (For perspective, the current US budget is about $4.4 trillion, with a deficit of about $1 trillion.)
As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Don’t forget that our goal in 2020 is to elect a Democratic president, and that will require appealing to the independents, undecideds and others whom the Democrats failed to reach in 2016.
If all of these progressive (socialist) promises, or even a few, are planks in the 2020 Democratic platform we are doomed to a second term of Trump as president.
2
The USA needs more Skilled Trades. How about we offer grants to VO-TECHs that cover all but 10% of the cost - on the condition that the people who get these grants complete the program. If they drop-out before they finish the course of study, then they are obligated to pay back the full amount. Cosmetology school - for example - costs $15,000.... which seems like a high price to pay for a job that has a median income of $35Kish. We need more plumbers and carpenters that are highly skilled and do great work.
2
@Aaron Kinchen
The Sanders plan covers trade schools and apprenticeships, too.
2
When you make college free for everyone, you give by far the largest benefits to the wealthy. They go from paying full price ($60,000 ) to $0. Meanwhile, the poor go from paying, say, $10,000 to $0. I want my tax dollars subsidizing those who can’t afford college, not children of the rich.
2
@CP what about all those college athletes! Who win big time scholarships to play sports! Big sponsors. No fair. My kids never became star athletes, they never played sports in college.
1
@CP
I’d argue that the marginal value of the $10k to the poor is far greater than the marginal value of $60k to the wealthy. I’d also point out that you ignore the middle class, who also get very little financial aid, that most wealthy kids go to private colleges, and those who don’t are such a minuscule part of the population that the amount of money saved by not giving the actual wealthy free college is not worth giving up the benefits of a universal program.
3
Until Sanders and Warren and the likes of them advocate investigating why college education is so expensive - they’ll not get my vote. College boards and deans must be feeling mighty secure with their institutional treasuries and lush salaries when gullible citizens fall for government subsidies. Free education? Baloney! Education tuition credit for community service would be more acceptable. Many senior citizens living off of a monthly $1000 Social Security check must be cringing at “free” education when they barely can pay for housing, utilities, and food. How many seniors live isolated without family contact or an occasional outting? It’s time to focus on those Americans who deserve the focus of entitlements. Let those who want college assistance do something for those who end up pay for it.
1
@Ray
And many of these elderly get government funded housing which includes rent, heat, electricity and cable/internet/phone. Why are they entitled to this?
I'm not opposed to helping to provide a roof over the heads of the elderly. It benefits all of us when we provide for society. Whether that is access to affordable health care, affordable housing, and yes affordable higher learning.
I don't have a problem attaching some kind of public service to providing for a college education but it has o be attainable and readily available. Our daughter looked into Americorp. There was nothing available close to home, not even in our state at the time. If a stipulation of tuition free college is serving the nation it has to be an attainable goal. Working in the local library, helping out in the public school system or mentoring area students. But if it doesn't serve the student's community the requirement won't work. Not everyone is suited to living far from home. I would never have done this and none of our children will either. Family is important to them as in living close.
One of the downsides of means testing is all the forms that have to be filled in and sent through the system. They create a barrier to students who don’t understand them (and have no help from parents) and they create a bureaucracy that costs a ridiculous amount of money to administer.
Taking the cost of this bureaucracy into account I wouldn’t be surprised if the universal model is cheaper. As many point out, the truly wealthy will send their kids to private schools, anyway. Unless of course their kids prefer to make their own way without their wealthy parents breathing down their necks.
7
We have recently learned from past infusions of large amounts of money into education that the money didn’t make any difference.
We discovered that unless the student was burning with energy to study and succeed, their grades did not improve.
Asian students don’t succeed because of superior intellects. They succeed because they burn with the values they learned from their parents to succeed in education.
Until American students receive this kind of drive from their parents they will not place high priority on doing well in school.
3
Lots of people do not have the intelligence and motivation to study at the college level. According to the College Board https://reports.collegeboard.org/sat-suite-program-results/class-2019-results , "45% of SAT takers in the class of 2019 met both college readiness benchmarks, down from 47% for the class of 2018."
Students and parents will make more informed decisions about college, and students will study harder, when they have some skin in the game.
11
The free tuition idea must be an incentive for secondary school students to excel to be rewarded with that free education. It's a mistake to dedicate money based on money to pay for education. You want to reward good grades in secondary school. Imagine a program that dispersed the legislated funds to the highest scholastic achievers, not just based on financial formulas. A massive free education in college would incentivise greater effort earlier in secondary schools.
3
After 6 years of college, I noticed that many of the people attending were not capable of the workload or the actual learning of the material.
Will they have to pay back what they used if they drop out?
Secondly, if the problem is affordability, make rules to lower the cost of an education. Why should our taxes go up when a simpler solution is there?
The same applies to the medical industry...
Third, when will these candidates say how they are going to make it all happen? Congress is not a vacuum and neither is the Presidency. I keep hearing how one candidate or the other will "do this" or "do that" but none are saying how they will accomplish this in relation to passing laws.
6
Community colleges, trade schools and apprenticeship training should be free to all. The first two years at a four year public college/university should be free to all. Means test for the last two years. We’re talking about public institutions only; the private schools will still be in demand. Perhaps their costs will go down over time if they have to compete with the public system.
10
Yes, free tuition at public institutions will result in private institutions being more careful about increasing their costs and, therefore, their fees to students.
4
Means testing excludes a few rich people. But much more importantly it excludes a lot of poor people who aren’t able to comply with the massive paperwork requirements. In addition Buttigieg’s suggested means test kicks in way too low and creates a massive marginal tax for middle class parents.
12
Personally, I don't think free public university should be for all. It should be based merit. It's already bad enough at some schools where you have freshmen who can't even write an essay well (complete with citations), but their parents can afford to send them there anyway.
Also, what about books, lab fees, dorm room and board (or rent and food, if you live off campus), etc.? Even "free" tuition isn't enough for people who then still can't afford 4 years of the huge other expenses associated with going to college.
3
What seems to get lost in the rhetoric is the concept of "public colleges". At some point, early in our history, we recognized the societal benefit to providing publicly supported education through grade 12. Public education is not means tested. No one objects to its provision for all, rich or poor. Likewise, no one is suggesting that "elite" private academies, favored by the rich, should be publicly supported.
We have now reached a point where it is recognized that our society benefits, perhaps even requires, a substantial cohort of citizens educated to grade 16. The "free tuition" proposals are a means of extending public education to a point necessary for the collective good of our society. Public colleges, as it is currently with K-12 public education, will be supported by society as a whole. They may be attended by rich or poor, without means testing. Those who can afford the Harvards or Yales or who choose to take out loans for private universities, will still have those options.
Additionally, no one is suggesting trade schools or apprenticeships will be eliminated. Quite the contrary, parts of these proposals include augmentation of such programs for those who wish to pursue other paths.
It boils down to what provides best for the future of our society as a whole. We ARE in this together.
43
It’s good we are having this debate, but I’m surprised that even the detailed plans linked in the article don’t really get to the nitty gritty. How are federal tax funds distributed to 50 states that run 50 different public higher ed systems with differing costs that need to be offset to make them tuition free? Should some of the new aid be voucher-like applicable to private colleges (if not, you spend a lot of federal dollars shifting students from private to public and make the plan more costly than it otherwise might be i. e., states save money when privates educate their students)? None of this means we shouldn’t develop a plan to make college as affordable as it once was, but eventually candidates will need to develop real policies. Perhaps the principle is enough for this stage of electoral politics.
1
I think college should be free regardless of income but tied to merit. Otherwise the universities will go the way of the public schools and sink to the lowest level. Not everyone is cut out for college/university.
I think free trade schools should be available as should certificate programs that lead to employment.
38
@Imkay Public schools suffer because of funding, racial inequality, infrastructure, and lack of support for teachers. Making a merit based system would disadvantage poor students who don't have the means or support to pay for things like SAT/ACT prep tutoring. Sure, not everyone will or is meant to graduate from college. But, everyone should be given a fair chance.
1
And if it's free for all, how are college's going to set tuition prices? There will be no market force to hold them down. Will Harvard still be able to charge more than No Name College, and if so, by how much?
2
@TonyD
Private school will be able to charge whatever they want.
Public universities will just be folded into the same system that pays for K-12 public schools now.
What does a public high school 'charge'?
3
@TonyD The proposal is only for public colleges so Harvard doesn’t apply here.
2
@TonyD
Back in the days I remember, when state colleges cost next to nothing, private colleges competed with each on price. There will still be a large enough pool of private colleges to make that possible. People shopping for private colleges expected to pay more and still will. It it true that private colleges were not as staggeringly expensive as they are now: my middle class parents could send me to one without having to go into the kind of stressed-out penury that is the norm today.
150K is too high: I taught at one of the highly competitive public ivies that set its tuition low, and that benefited the wealthy who could afford good secondary schooling, not the needy in less well-funded school districts. I would set the bar at 85K for a family of 4, if the student qualifies for admission. I would then support steps up to about 125k, before the family had to bear the full cost of instate tuition.
This isn't like health care: that's a right. A college education is not a right, and most students don't need 4 years of college to do well in life.
2-year degrees are a different matter: community colleges provide vital training for actual jobs.
Above all, we should be funding public schools much better than we do. I would rather see any of this funding go for primary and secondary schooling, rather than a college education.
7
If we don't offer it to everyone, those who aren't included will try to destroy it. same with healthcare.
145
This never have been proven that it will be ruined if it is not free for all.
This talking point is going around without any explaination.
How about people will never have children. Why do they have topay for all these?
Free for poor seems is fair.
1
@Zee I'd say the facts are the explanation. SNAP, heating and living assistance etc. are always on the chopping block when budgets are discussed. Medicare and Social Security get mere mentions because the masses rise up to protest cuts.
13
@GFF I think you’re correct. Or if it’s not destroyed, free education will become substandard education, and expensive/ private education superior yet available only to those with money. Same with healthcare. Both need to be free for everyone.
5
Why haven't any of the candidates suggested Free Tuition in exchange for compulsory public service? Four years free college in exchange for two years in the Peace Corps, Americorps, US Armed Forces, or the Public School system seems like a great deal for our citizens, and a political compromise that voters across the spectrum can get behind.
59
@Stokepoint, Can anyone get a decent job without college? Or better, what could our country achieve if hardly anyone went to college? We are not talking about free tuition at USC, Princeton, MIT, or Harvard. We are talking about free tuition at our land grant (State) colleges. We started Public education because our country needed educated people if it was ever going to be something. compulsory attendance laws were passed in the early 1900s by 1910 we started building high schools. Interestingly enough, they were being promoted by "Progressives." one hundred and twenty years later, we are long overdue to add another 4 years to our public education.
12
@Stokepoint
I think Delaney did?
@Stokepoint
It’s free, not “free”
3
As a proud graduate of Hunter College, City University of New York (1969) I feel the argument is moot.
Despite Hunter's outstanding faculty, rigorous entrance requirements and comprehensive curriculum, and its location on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, an area occupied by wealthy New Yorkers, very few if any students were members of New York's upper socioeconomic classes.
Why? One of the ways the rich maintain their wealth is networking with others like them, gaining access to lucrative jobs through their friendships with classmates who are tied to great wealth, and yes, marrying others within the same economic group. It's similar to a corporate merger.
Sitting in class next to the likes of children of lower middle class and blue collar workers does nothing to enhance their chances of advancement.
If this weren't the case, the frenzy to gain admission to the handful of Ivy League schools would not be fierce and hysterical, as it continues to be today.
I wouldn't lose sleep worrying about this particular issue.
65
@TM
The choice to send a child to the Ivies and schools of similar repute has little to do with networking. It does occur, of course, but these kids are already networked thanks to their parents' social and work circle, and friends who are equally privileged.
Parents send kids to the Ivies because they can get a better education there than at a state, and because they believe the degree is more useful when getting a job (in most cases, it is not).
@TM I was a rich kid at CUNY not long after you were there, and I disagree: sitting in class and being friends with kids who lived in city housing projects and whose families were on welfare did me, who lived in a house with a backyard swimming pool and three cars up front, a world of good, including in employment, because I could relate to the students whose teacher I would become. It also helped me become someone who understood about economic inequality: something that actually ended up benefited me because of working in the nonprofit center and in politics.
Mr. Buttigieg is wrong on this issue. The truly rich will always send their kids to an elite college and pay for it just like they send their kids to fancy private K- 12 schools. Including them in this program won’t cost much and raise this program to the level of Social Security and Medicare which are universally supported instead of turning this into a welfare program like food stamps which will be ended as soon as the Republicans get back in control.
117
Come to NY, all rich kids are at Hunter College or at CUNY. Paying almost nothing
Rich people love not to pay.
4
@Zee Hopefully New York is getting some tax money from them then.
3
“ It’s about whether higher education should be a commodity or a public service.”
Both? My take is education is an important investment in our country and people, and everyone should have a path to be able to work toward a better future. Costs shouldn’t be so prohibitive that people don’t feel college is possible. On the flip side, students will take the experience more seriously if they have to work a little for it.
I believe Yang may be the only candidate asking a different question. Rather than asking how much money the government should throw at the problem, he’s asking why colleges have gotten so expensive. I don’t know if his analysis checks out, but the best answer would seem to be reducing costs, low-interest loans, and an increased number of scholarships and grants for deserving students, especially those with financial need.
For those already saddled in debt, there’s no fair way to deal with this, but maybe there should be some level of forgiveness and reimbursement for debt over $50,000 within a set period of time (possibly the past 10 years).
3
@Chris, We just have to apologize to people like me who paid off their student loans, forgive those loans that are outstanding, and make tuition-free to students who can go to state colleges. It is time to move public education from K-12 to K-16.
3
Isn’t there already free college for financially challenged students?
At what point do we make college worthless because everyone does it ?
At what point is it too much, giving everyone everything ? Honest question,....how much is too much enabling?
10
@Joe, make college worthless because everybody does it? Is that what public education is? Worthless because everybody does it? It is worth less because it does not go far enough. We started building high schools around 1910. We have added a bit of knowledge since then. College is no longer a prize, it is a necessary survival tool and our country would revert to third world status without it. Join the 21st Century.
15
@Joe
I guess that if you only see college education as a means to separate people into classes, making it so everyone can get one would diminish the value. But I’d say that there’s an intrinsic value to an education that accrues not just to the individual, but to our nation as a whole.
10
@Joe Education is worthless if everyone is educated?
8
I hate to be one who speaks up for the ultra-wealthy in this country -- they have enough champions in Washington as it is -- but their children have as much right to attend a public college or university (or trade school) tuition free as mine do.
A basic higher education should be a right for all Americans who want one, not just for the rich and not just for those whose parents earn under $150,000.
I also want to assure Mr. Buttigieg that the rich can still attend their elite colleges and universities and pay for it with their own private funds. As I'm sure they will continue to do.
172
@avrds
Exactly correct. It's the same reason that everybody who pays into Social Security -- from minimum-wage worker to Bill Gates -- can collect benefits.
20
Indeed, the wealthy will still attend private and expensive colleges and universities rather than go to public institutions tuition-free.The mayor is just trying to attack reasonable and popular plans presented by Senators Sanders and Warren. His attacks on them as “elitist” and “regressive” are nonsense.
23
I’m reminded of Anatole France’s witticism about how the law, in its fairness, forbids both the poor and the rich from sleeping in the streets.
You want the program, in all fairness, to give monetary benefit to the poor and the rich equally.
There is a facile equality to it, but it fails in real life. Post secondary education is part of what makes people rich. Giving rich people the means to get rich-er is fundamentally different from giving the poor the means to fully develop talents and become rich.
4
Public college should be be free for all. Otherwise it becomes a stigma on the poor. Like social security it is a benefit from all to all. And indeed the wealthy are theoretically paying more taxes to support it anyway which is a form of “paying higher fees”
124
@Nomi Silverman
theoretically. the rich are theoretically paying more in taxes.
The main point is, the richest will be paying the most tax for all of the students. Since the top 20 % will be contributing the most, they have a right to be part of an extremely well run education system. This will promote an equal admittance to all schools. As soon as we exclude any group, the programs will be subject to unfair rules and more needless regulating.
34
No, college is not for everyone. Make it affordable, but not free. Cap loan interest rates for any continuing Ed or trade. And work w lenders to lower all current loan interest rates and incl college debt in any bankruptcy filing. If you eliminate $50k or all college debt loans for each person, you penalize those who did it right by working jobs through college or attending a more affordable school. And penalize parents who scraped and saved to pay for their kids education without needing loans.
22
@Meg Riley
And the Emancipation Proclamation penalized ex-slaves who had managed to work their way to manumission, I suppose?
In my view, we should be trying to make life better for each new generation, not insisting that they suffer as we did.
5
College used to not be for everybody. In fact, secondary school used to not be for everybody. Times have changed, as has education, the workforce, and along with it all colleges. This is is a service based economy. The trades are important, but more and more, a basic BA is a necessity to gain jobs. It's not the bachelors that is not for everybody. Today it is advanced degrees that are not for everybody--more and more people who specialize have to get advanced degrees, while general education for the job market requires a BA.
5
AOC was spot-on with her analysis on this issue. Excluding some groups hurts the overall program. We don't stop wealthy people from going to public schools. We want a diversity of incomes and backgrounds in our public offerings.
161
@Keith My great concern is that the Democratic presidential candidates are competing to see who can make the most woke and socialist promises:
Free college tuition. Medicare for all, including illegal immigrants. College loan forgiveness. Reparations for blacks and gays. Guaranteed basic income. Federal job guarantees. Federally mandated school busing to achieve integration. Green New Deal (eco-socialism). Voting and early release for prisoners. Open borders.
All the fabulously wealthy US individuals and corporations together do not have the many trillions of dollars needed to pay for these goodies year after year, and even Bernie Sanders has admitted that taxes would have to be raised on the middle class to pay for Medicare for All, not to mention the additional trillions needed for the other items. (For perspective, the current US budget is about $4.4 trillion, with a deficit of about $1 trillion.)
As Margaret Thatcher aptly noted, the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.
Don’t forget that our (Democrats') goal in 2020 is to elect a Democratic president, and that will require appealing to the independents, undecideds and others whom the Democrats failed to reach in 2016.
If all of these progressive (socialist) promises, or even a few, are planks in the 2020 Democratic platform we are doomed to a second term of Trump as president.
2
@Keith
If public colleges are free for all, they will be flooded with students who are even less prepared and capable academically than those entering college now.
This will allow private colleges to maintain their low admission rates and high tuition costs, since private colleges will then be rightly known as institutions of higher quality than public colleges.
@Mon Ray
That would be awful; more kids attending college.
Those less prepared flunk out early and quickly.
Private colleges are unaffected either way.
Universal programs last and are equitable to ALL. Means tested programs breed strife and resentment and are used to divide us, not unite. The rich will still be rich. The rich will still attend the schools of their choice. The rich don't take out and owe massive student loans. Private Uni's remain outside of the paid-fors.
Hey, time to change the comment above. Copying and pasting the same comment ad nauseum is trolling and boring. It's bad form. Time to change it up.
1
Free college for all may be a legislative reach, but he's wrong to say that it isn't a basic right like K-12 education. Not everyone finishes high school, and when free education was first established here, many didn't attend high school at all, but were forced to go to work.
But the difference between these plans is immaterial: the ability of all qualified students to attend college is the real issue here, and any proposal will be modified by legislative realities anyway. The Democrats should stop squabbling about this nonsense and focus on the substantive matter: they want every student to have an opportunity to go to college, while the Republicans do not.
23
Mayor Pete is wrong about College For All. There are people who dropped out after elementary school and middle school but that did not make middle school and high school personal preferences.
The difference in costs among the plans is minuscule. Don't make it about rich and poor. Education has been and always will be a vehicle for benefit and advance personally, for the country and for the world. It should be encouraged at all levels and for everyone.
85
@bluecyan
thats true & " there are others of us who are too old to try to go to college ".., i kno a person never stops learning things but i'm tryin to make way for my nephew & other younger members of my family to go to college should they choose to once they graduate HS " ..
@bluecyan The difference is about 500 billion over 10 years. That is a lot of money that can be spent elsewhere.