Make College Free Without Spending A Dime

[Cecilie1200]

HE

That would give all students who want to get a college degree a free option to do so.

Someone needs to explain why idiots like Luddly, who aren't educated enough to comprehend the word "free", are commenting on the best way to educate people. It's like a bird commenting on the best snorkeling gear.

You have to understand that to people like Luddly...something is "free" if someone ELSE pays for it!

Hence my statements that a) he doesn't comprehend the word "free", and b) it's a joke for him to be commenting on education . . . or anything, really.

 

[Moonglow]

It's simple common sense...if I wanted to teach a hundred thousand people how to make "widgets" I could teach a classroom of say forty people at a time the proper way to make that product...in which case it would take me decades to teach the number I need...or I could teach that same lesson over the internet to ALL those hundred thousand people at the same time.

Not to mention that it would be of great benefit to those who learn quickly to be able to move on after they grasp something, instead of having to sit around and wait for the teacher to repeat it six times for the slower people.

Yeah, but they have never done that...

 

[Cecilie1200]

It always boils down to free stuff to those on the right. They're worried sick about paying for free stuff. Investment in education after WW2 helped build the middle class. There were crank reactionaries of course against this, but thankfully they were in the minority. Now they're in the majority thanks to right wing media indoctrination and no left wing media to offset it.

You're right. I AM worried sick about being forced to buy you things. I don't know you, and what I do know, I don't like. So it rather bothers me to have any of my money going to you, rather than going to people I DO know and like, such as my own offspring. If you don't like having to explain to me why I should be giving your money-grubbing ass any of my paycheck, I would respectfully suggest that you stop asking for it, and thus eliminate the problem. If, however, you are going to insist on coming around constantly with your hand out - much less doing so with this insufferably arrogant attitude as though I am the one who's out of line - you are going to have to live with providing justifications for your demands, like anyone else begging for charity.

There's a big difference, FYI, between selling us on the value of investing in education and the value of investing in YOUR education. I have no problem, for example, considering money spent on my own education or that of my children as being well-spent. You're going to have to get a lot less theoretical, though, to convince me that I'm getting enough direct value from YOUR education to cough up.

The fact that you actually uttered the phrase "paying for free stuff" with a straight face is hilarious, by the way.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Free is very expensive

If you want to sponsor a kid to go to college you are free to do so
I am free to say no

That was the attitude that didn't build the middle class. Thanks Ayn Rand, for helping make America become a land of spoiled brats who only believed in the glory of the individual saying "it's all about meeeee".

Yeah, this is all about Ayn Rand, rather than just human nature and common sense that says spending large chunks of one's income on total strangers is ludicrous.

Let alone the common sense that understands that when someone's saying, "You should fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate me, and YOU are the selfish one if you don't want to" is an utter fucking moron who isn't bright enough to benefit from higher education, anyway.

 

[Oldstyle]

This notion that if we could only educate more people in our colleges then our economic problems would be over is rather amusing to me. Churning out another 100,000 political science majors or 50,000 more lawyers isn't going to do DIDDLY to fix our economy and if you suck money out of the Private Sector to pay for that education then it's actually going be a drain on the economy.

Isn't it strange that nobody from the Left is calling on Education itself to become cheaper...but instead are calling on the wealthy to pick up the tab for an education that even the Middle Class can no longer afford?

The reason for that of course is that "Education" is an industry for Liberals. They've taken it over...they run it...and they make a whole lot of money for themselves doing it.

 

[Oldstyle]

Free is very expensive

If you want to sponsor a kid to go to college you are free to do so
I am free to say no

That was the attitude that didn't build the middle class. Thanks Ayn Rand, for helping make America become a land of spoiled brats who only believed in the glory of the individual saying "it's all about meeeee".

Yeah, this is all about Ayn Rand, rather than just human nature and common sense that says spending large chunks of one's income on total strangers is ludicrous.

Let alone the common sense that understands that when someone's saying, "You should fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate me, and YOU are the selfish one if you don't want to" is an utter fucking moron who isn't bright enough to benefit from higher education, anyway.

I wonder how many of the people who rant about Ayn Rand here have actually read her work? I have a sneaking suspicion most haven't...

 

[Disir]

I have. In fact, I still have several of her books. Then I grew up and got a life. Funny how that shit works.

 

[jasonnfree]

Free is very expensive

If you want to sponsor a kid to go to college you are free to do so
I am free to say no

That was the attitude that didn't build the middle class. Thanks Ayn Rand, for helping make America become a land of spoiled brats who only believed in the glory of the individual saying "it's all about meeeee".

Yeah, this is all about Ayn Rand, rather than just human nature and common sense that says spending large chunks of one's income on total strangers is ludicrous.

Let alone the common sense that understands that when someone's saying, "You should fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to educate me, and YOU are the selfish one if you don't want to" is an utter fucking moron who isn't bright enough to benefit from higher education, anyway.

You don't like me or what i

It always boils down to free stuff to those on the right. They're worried sick about paying for free stuff. Investment in education after WW2 helped build the middle class. There were crank reactionaries of course against this, but thankfully they were in the minority. Now they're in the majority thanks to right wing media indoctrination and no left wing media to offset it.

You're right. I AM worried sick about being forced to buy you things. I don't know you, and what I do know, I don't like. So it rather bothers me to have any of my money going to you, rather than going to people I DO know and like, such as my own offspring. If you don't like having to explain to me why I should be giving your money-grubbing ass any of my paycheck, I would respectfully suggest that you stop asking for it, and thus eliminate the problem. If, however, you are going to insist on coming around constantly with your hand out - much less doing so with this insufferably arrogant attitude as though I am the one who's out of line - you are going to have to live with providing justifications for your demands, like anyone else begging for charity.

There's a big difference, FYI, between selling us on the value of investing in education and the value of investing in YOUR education. I have no problem, for example, considering money spent on my own education or that of my children as being well-spent. You're going to have to get a lot less theoretical, though, to convince me that I'm getting enough direct value from YOUR education to cough up.

The fact that you actually uttered the phrase "paying for free stuff" with a straight face is hilarious, by the way.

I completed my education in the 60's. If you paid for it, I thank you. I use the phrase "free stuff" because this is the word you people like to use for taxation. Don't like my posts? Don't read, better yet, put me on ignore.

 

[jasonnfree]

There, I put cecilie on ignore, hope she does the same to me!

 

[jasonnfree]

I have. In fact, I still have several of her books. Then I grew up and got a life. Funny how that shit works.

Most people soon find out that Rand lived in a fantasy world. The world doesn't work like that. Just like trickle down, the great free market, and all that. In her hour of need, Ayn Rand took advantage of social security and medicare. So will most, if not all of these kool aid drinkers on the right.

 

[Disir]

Rand was pissed that the station of life that she had been born into was destroyed. People celebrate her mediocrity. For someone that valued reason she was overemotional to a fault.

 

[Conservative65]

How Obama Could Make College Free For Everyone Without Spending A Dime

If President Obama truly wants to transform the cost of higher education, however, he could make college free for all students without having to lay out more money to pay for it. That’s because the federal government could take the $69 billion it currently spends to subsidize the cost of college through grants, tax breaks, and work-study funds and instead cover tuition at all public colleges, which came to $62.6 billion in 2012, the most recent data. (The government spends another $197.4 billion on student loans.) That would give all students who want to get a college degree a free option to do so. It could also put pressure on private universities to compete with the free option by reducing their costs, which have risen 13 percent over the last five years.


Eliminating college tuition with the money spent on subsidies could also make the system more equal. Currently, the government’s tax-based aid mostly flows to wealthy families instead of low- and middle-income ones. And Pell Grants, which do go to low-income students, have been cut in recent years and cover a small percentage of the cost of college.


We have the money but investing in our own country has not been a priority.

I do invest in my country by paying for my daughter's college. All I ask is that other parents do the same. I made it a priority for MINE but it's not my place to make it one for another person's kid because they can't.

 

[rightwinger]

I would like to see the government come up with free online courses for most 100 and 200 level courses. It would be required that all colleges accept the credits

 

[Moonglow]

I would like to see the government come up with free online courses for most 100 and 200 level courses. It would be required that all colleges accept the credits

Since all they really are is a revision of High school subjects....I CLEP tested some of mine in the Army, but the colleges would not take them...

 

[rightwinger]

I would like to see the government come up with free online courses for most 100 and 200 level courses. It would be required that all colleges accept the credits

Since all they really are is a revision of High school subjects....I CLEP tested some of mine in the Army, but the colleges would not take them...

Why should they when they can charge you $3000 to take the same course?

Most freshman and sophomore courses involve lecture halls with canned exams. The government could develop a series of lectures, reading material and exams for each course, accredit them and make them available for free

 

[asterism]

You honestly believe that the government usually does things more efficiently and at a lower cost than the Private Sector? Really?

No overhead. That's right out of the gate.

Shall I go on?

I can't think of an organization ever created by mankind more prone to "overhead" than government, Disir!

If you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...let the government do it! That's an old saw but it exists because it's so spot on.

Show me. The red tape that people moan about is accountability and is heavily scrutinized. It is far more accessible to the public. The services via government are not for profit. So, they aren't there to appease the shareholders and this means that services aren't cut for profit. Now, they get cut when some cowboy doesn't like that a for profit can't compete and they will defund it until it doesn't work and then point fingers and say, "See, I told you so." That has been the name of the game for the past decade.

But, when the for profit starts operating at a loss then they close up shop leaving a mess behind that the public has to contend with. That free market isn't free.

Many students are not going to do well with online course only. That only addresses one type of learner. Shucks, one need only look at the online education failure for high school education.

Yes, the Private Sector is "there" to appease either the shareholders or the business owners by creating profit. It's that pursuit of profit that keeps overhead low. Now contrast that with the Public Sector. They are only "there" to appease themselves. Making a profit isn't part of the equation. Government employees don't lose their jobs if a profit isn't made because their jobs can be maintained by increasing the national debt. Overhead can increase every year because there is no concern over profits. I challenge you to show me a governmental agency that's gotten smaller over time!

As for your claim that when profits start operating at a loss they close up? Well, yeah...but that usually occurs when either another Private Sector company out performs them...or increasingly when the Public Sector encroaches on their market.

As for different types of learners? Granted some students don't do well in some learning situations. For them a more traditional format might be the only option. For those that CAN function well with an internet form of teaching...they would be receiving the best teaching available at a far lower cost because that one professor's recorded lecture playing over the web could be seen by literally millions of students rather than a few hundred. THAT is a viable way to reduce the cost of education...making it a function of government won't reduce the cost...it will simply change who gets stuck paying for that cost.

It's not necessary to advertise the public sector. The public sector is there to provide a service. Hence, the public. Time and again we see the private sector fail to provide the same service because profit comes before people. They have failed at everything they have undertaken simply because they cannot provide the same service and make a profit. This is true in mental health care, physical health care, nursing homes, social services and education. The goals are different. This is why they shut down. It has nothing to do with the government encroaching on a market. The government service was stopped because the cry was that it could be done more efficiently and with less cost to begin with. Furthermore, many of these hacks are dependent on government money (tax dollars). So, when they figure out that they can't make a huge fortune doing the hard work then they bail. That is what happens. Every time.

We are no longer in the widget making business. The widget jobs were outsourced. Research is not done behind a lap top. Fieldwork is not done behind a laptop.

The public sector has huge marketing and advertising outlays:

Billions from the federal government in just 5 years: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41681.pdf

 

[Conservative65]

I would like to see the government come up with free online courses for most 100 and 200 level courses. It would be required that all colleges accept the credits

Since all they really are is a revision of High school subjects....I CLEP tested some of mine in the Army, but the colleges would not take them...

Why should they when they can charge you $3000 to take the same course?

Most freshman and sophomore courses involve lecture halls with canned exams. The government could develop a series of lectures, reading material and exams for each course, accredit them and make them available for free

Maybe at the State college whre you went.

 

[Disir]

No overhead. That's right out of the gate.

Shall I go on?

I can't think of an organization ever created by mankind more prone to "overhead" than government, Disir!

If you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...let the government do it! That's an old saw but it exists because it's so spot on.

Show me. The red tape that people moan about is accountability and is heavily scrutinized. It is far more accessible to the public. The services via government are not for profit. So, they aren't there to appease the shareholders and this means that services aren't cut for profit. Now, they get cut when some cowboy doesn't like that a for profit can't compete and they will defund it until it doesn't work and then point fingers and say, "See, I told you so." That has been the name of the game for the past decade.

But, when the for profit starts operating at a loss then they close up shop leaving a mess behind that the public has to contend with. That free market isn't free.

Many students are not going to do well with online course only. That only addresses one type of learner. Shucks, one need only look at the online education failure for high school education.

Yes, the Private Sector is "there" to appease either the shareholders or the business owners by creating profit. It's that pursuit of profit that keeps overhead low. Now contrast that with the Public Sector. They are only "there" to appease themselves. Making a profit isn't part of the equation. Government employees don't lose their jobs if a profit isn't made because their jobs can be maintained by increasing the national debt. Overhead can increase every year because there is no concern over profits. I challenge you to show me a governmental agency that's gotten smaller over time!

As for your claim that when profits start operating at a loss they close up? Well, yeah...but that usually occurs when either another Private Sector company out performs them...or increasingly when the Public Sector encroaches on their market.

As for different types of learners? Granted some students don't do well in some learning situations. For them a more traditional format might be the only option. For those that CAN function well with an internet form of teaching...they would be receiving the best teaching available at a far lower cost because that one professor's recorded lecture playing over the web could be seen by literally millions of students rather than a few hundred. THAT is a viable way to reduce the cost of education...making it a function of government won't reduce the cost...it will simply change who gets stuck paying for that cost.

It's not necessary to advertise the public sector. The public sector is there to provide a service. Hence, the public. Time and again we see the private sector fail to provide the same service because profit comes before people. They have failed at everything they have undertaken simply because they cannot provide the same service and make a profit. This is true in mental health care, physical health care, nursing homes, social services and education. The goals are different. This is why they shut down. It has nothing to do with the government encroaching on a market. The government service was stopped because the cry was that it could be done more efficiently and with less cost to begin with. Furthermore, many of these hacks are dependent on government money (tax dollars). So, when they figure out that they can't make a huge fortune doing the hard work then they bail. That is what happens. Every time.

We are no longer in the widget making business. The widget jobs were outsourced. Research is not done behind a lap top. Fieldwork is not done behind a laptop.

The public sector has huge marketing and advertising outlays:

Billions from the federal government in just 5 years: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41681.pdf

You're right. I wasn't thinking federal. Or even military. The charter schools use tax dollars for advertising. Not that this is all that is in the Department of Education.

 

[Oldstyle]

I can't think of an organization ever created by mankind more prone to "overhead" than government, Disir!

If you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...let the government do it! That's an old saw but it exists because it's so spot on.

Show me. The red tape that people moan about is accountability and is heavily scrutinized. It is far more accessible to the public. The services via government are not for profit. So, they aren't there to appease the shareholders and this means that services aren't cut for profit. Now, they get cut when some cowboy doesn't like that a for profit can't compete and they will defund it until it doesn't work and then point fingers and say, "See, I told you so." That has been the name of the game for the past decade.

But, when the for profit starts operating at a loss then they close up shop leaving a mess behind that the public has to contend with. That free market isn't free.

Many students are not going to do well with online course only. That only addresses one type of learner. Shucks, one need only look at the online education failure for high school education.

Yes, the Private Sector is "there" to appease either the shareholders or the business owners by creating profit. It's that pursuit of profit that keeps overhead low. Now contrast that with the Public Sector. They are only "there" to appease themselves. Making a profit isn't part of the equation. Government employees don't lose their jobs if a profit isn't made because their jobs can be maintained by increasing the national debt. Overhead can increase every year because there is no concern over profits. I challenge you to show me a governmental agency that's gotten smaller over time!

As for your claim that when profits start operating at a loss they close up? Well, yeah...but that usually occurs when either another Private Sector company out performs them...or increasingly when the Public Sector encroaches on their market.

As for different types of learners? Granted some students don't do well in some learning situations. For them a more traditional format might be the only option. For those that CAN function well with an internet form of teaching...they would be receiving the best teaching available at a far lower cost because that one professor's recorded lecture playing over the web could be seen by literally millions of students rather than a few hundred. THAT is a viable way to reduce the cost of education...making it a function of government won't reduce the cost...it will simply change who gets stuck paying for that cost.

It's not necessary to advertise the public sector. The public sector is there to provide a service. Hence, the public. Time and again we see the private sector fail to provide the same service because profit comes before people. They have failed at everything they have undertaken simply because they cannot provide the same service and make a profit. This is true in mental health care, physical health care, nursing homes, social services and education. The goals are different. This is why they shut down. It has nothing to do with the government encroaching on a market. The government service was stopped because the cry was that it could be done more efficiently and with less cost to begin with. Furthermore, many of these hacks are dependent on government money (tax dollars). So, when they figure out that they can't make a huge fortune doing the hard work then they bail. That is what happens. Every time.

We are no longer in the widget making business. The widget jobs were outsourced. Research is not done behind a lap top. Fieldwork is not done behind a laptop.

The public sector has huge marketing and advertising outlays:

Billions from the federal government in just 5 years: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41681.pdf

You're right. I wasn't thinking federal. Or even military. The charter schools use tax dollars for advertising. Not that this is all that is in the Department of Education.

The cost of the Department of Education to the American taxpayer has increased by leaps and bounds since it's inception. In the early 80's it's budget was around 3 billion dollars and now it's over 16 billion per year. That's what Washington DOES when it takes over a part of the economy...it drives the cost through the roof with regulations and red tape.

 

[rightwinger]

Show me. The red tape that people moan about is accountability and is heavily scrutinized. It is far more accessible to the public. The services via government are not for profit. So, they aren't there to appease the shareholders and this means that services aren't cut for profit. Now, they get cut when some cowboy doesn't like that a for profit can't compete and they will defund it until it doesn't work and then point fingers and say, "See, I told you so." That has been the name of the game for the past decade.

But, when the for profit starts operating at a loss then they close up shop leaving a mess behind that the public has to contend with. That free market isn't free.

Many students are not going to do well with online course only. That only addresses one type of learner. Shucks, one need only look at the online education failure for high school education.

Yes, the Private Sector is "there" to appease either the shareholders or the business owners by creating profit. It's that pursuit of profit that keeps overhead low. Now contrast that with the Public Sector. They are only "there" to appease themselves. Making a profit isn't part of the equation. Government employees don't lose their jobs if a profit isn't made because their jobs can be maintained by increasing the national debt. Overhead can increase every year because there is no concern over profits. I challenge you to show me a governmental agency that's gotten smaller over time!

As for your claim that when profits start operating at a loss they close up? Well, yeah...but that usually occurs when either another Private Sector company out performs them...or increasingly when the Public Sector encroaches on their market.

As for different types of learners? Granted some students don't do well in some learning situations. For them a more traditional format might be the only option. For those that CAN function well with an internet form of teaching...they would be receiving the best teaching available at a far lower cost because that one professor's recorded lecture playing over the web could be seen by literally millions of students rather than a few hundred. THAT is a viable way to reduce the cost of education...making it a function of government won't reduce the cost...it will simply change who gets stuck paying for that cost.

It's not necessary to advertise the public sector. The public sector is there to provide a service. Hence, the public. Time and again we see the private sector fail to provide the same service because profit comes before people. They have failed at everything they have undertaken simply because they cannot provide the same service and make a profit. This is true in mental health care, physical health care, nursing homes, social services and education. The goals are different. This is why they shut down. It has nothing to do with the government encroaching on a market. The government service was stopped because the cry was that it could be done more efficiently and with less cost to begin with. Furthermore, many of these hacks are dependent on government money (tax dollars). So, when they figure out that they can't make a huge fortune doing the hard work then they bail. That is what happens. Every time.

We are no longer in the widget making business. The widget jobs were outsourced. Research is not done behind a lap top. Fieldwork is not done behind a laptop.

The public sector has huge marketing and advertising outlays:

Billions from the federal government in just 5 years: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41681.pdf

You're right. I wasn't thinking federal. Or even military. The charter schools use tax dollars for advertising. Not that this is all that is in the Department of Education.

The cost of the Department of Education to the American taxpayer has increased by leaps and bounds since it's inception. In the early 80's it's budget was around 3 billion dollars and now it's over 16 billion per year. That's what Washington DOES when it takes over a part of the economy...it drives the cost through the roof with regulations and red tape.

In comparison to the education budget of the country, $16 billion is pennies