CDZ Should college education be available for free to anyone who qualifies academically?

[Tresha91203]

Why dont you address the states who have and are performing this experiment? You just glossed right over that to address others. It does not work.

What states have you in mind? What is your measure of whether it "works," and to what extent it would need to "work" for you to consider it "worth doing?"

Posts #38 and #106 discuss the disappointing results of this failing experiment at state level. Until one of the States figures out how to get it done, we don't need to go national.

Louisiana, Tennessee and Oregon are working on it (or giving up due to the cost and damage). I'm sure there are others, but these are the ones I know off the top of my head.

TY. I'll review those posts.

In the meantime, would you please identify what measures you're using (or propose we use) to measure whether the idea "works" or doesn't?

Sustainability is a big one for me. Also, I think kids should be in the real world a bit first. Many treat it as a vacation. They do not understand the value of a dollar, much less 4 years of free dollars. Let them work for their dollars until they hit 20 maybe. When they understand their lives in the working world without a degree, they are better able to appreciate the gift and not squander it. Those fortunate enough to land a good job without the degree (plant workers, landscapers, pipefitters, millwrights,etc) will not need our assistance.

 

[Asclepias]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

 

[oldsoul]

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

Even if that were true hadit should be addressing the question and not something he/she saw as an implication. Step one is making the decision to set a goal.

The point that I, and I believe hadit, are trying to make is that one has to define the problem, before attempting to solve it. I would agree that step one is the decision to set a goal, after one decides that it would be in one's best interests to address a given situation, and one has defined said situation. If you have not done these two things setting a goal is impossible. Take the housing senario, if one does not decide that it is in ones' best interest to have housing (defining the problem), it would never occur to one to set a goal of buying a house.

I'm not outright disagreeing with your process description, but I must point out that "having housing" and "buying a home" aren't really the same things, although one can, in some cases view them that way. I was certainly speaking with regard to buying a house, not securing housing.

Semantics.

 

[hadit]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

This is where the wheels fall off your tricycle. No one is against people getting an education, if they want one and are willing to work for one. What they are against is throwing and education at those who will either not graduate or will take a major that results in a very expensive piece of paper that does little good in the real world. You're making assumptions that invalidate your own position.

 

[oldsoul]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

Instead of providing "free College", why don't we simply make sure ALL HIGH SCHOOL graduates can read? Would that not have a much bigger impact on society as a whole? Or maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just raise the national graduation rate to say 99%. I would argue that this would do far more to enrich society as a whole, than providing a relative few with a college education. Why would we start at the top, so too speak, instead of at the bottom? Remember a rising tide lifts ALL ships. Rising tide being improved education. Argueing that enriching a few would acheive the same ends of a "rising tide" would be the same as arguing that if the top 1% made more money we all would be better off, something many reject out of hand.

 

[Asclepias]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

This is where the wheels fall off your tricycle. No one is against people getting an education, if they want one and are willing to work for one. What they are against is throwing and education at those who will either not graduate or will take a major that results in a very expensive piece of paper that does little good in the real world. You're making assumptions that invalidate your own position.

No need to get upset. The question is not regarding getting an education. Its getting an education they dont have to pay for. Plenty of people go to college now and dont graduate so thats not an issue. The exposure to college is more important. The different concepts one learns and the specific education in a chosen field. Lots of people go to college to find out what they want to do or discover it while there.

 

[hadit]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

This is where the wheels fall off your tricycle. No one is against people getting an education, if they want one and are willing to work for one. What they are against is throwing and education at those who will either not graduate or will take a major that results in a very expensive piece of paper that does little good in the real world. You're making assumptions that invalidate your own position.

No need to get upset. The question is not regarding getting an education. Its getting an education they dont have to pay for. Plenty of people go to college now and dont graduate so thats not an issue. The exposure to college is more important. The different concepts one learns and the specific education in a chosen field. Lots of people go to college to find out what they want to do or discover it while there.

And again we would be in the position of paying people to enrich themselves in a time when there is not only enough money to do that, but we are running massive deficits every single year. It is a luxury we cannot afford.

 

[Asclepias]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

Instead of providing "free College", why don't we simply make sure ALL HIGH SCHOOL graduates can read? Would that not have a much bigger impact on society as a whole? Or maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just raise the national graduation rate to say 99%. I would argue that this would do far more to enrich society as a whole, than providing a relative few with a college education. Why would we start at the top, so too speak, instead of at the bottom? Remember a rising tide lifts ALL ships. Rising tide being improved education. Argueing that enriching a few would acheive the same ends of a "rising tide" would be the same as arguing that if the top 1% made more money we all would be better off, something many reject out of hand.

That would help as well but its not feasible to think just learning to read will truly educate everyone.. I read from the age of two and still benefited from going to college. College isnt the top. Its a continuation of your education. Children should be prepared for college by the high schools instead of them concentrating on getting high test scores like they do now. I force my children to learn what they are testing on instead of rote memorization. They have to tell me the why and how behind the answers.

My view is that having a free education available to everyone will help those that feel hopeless like I did when I realized I was not getting a scholarship and faced with what to do next since I couldnt afford college. That affected my performance in high school believing I wouldnt be able to afford college. I thought it was a waste of time. I think its the height of folly and ignorance to pretend everyone has the same starting place or even the same outlook on college in their teenage years as they do after they graduate from high school.

 

[Asclepias]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

This is where the wheels fall off your tricycle. No one is against people getting an education, if they want one and are willing to work for one. What they are against is throwing and education at those who will either not graduate or will take a major that results in a very expensive piece of paper that does little good in the real world. You're making assumptions that invalidate your own position.

No need to get upset. The question is not regarding getting an education. Its getting an education they dont have to pay for. Plenty of people go to college now and dont graduate so thats not an issue. The exposure to college is more important. The different concepts one learns and the specific education in a chosen field. Lots of people go to college to find out what they want to do or discover it while there.

And again we would be in the position of paying people to enrich themselves in a time when there is not only enough money to do that, but we are running massive deficits every single year. It is a luxury we cannot afford.

There is plenty of money to do this. Even assuming you were not aware the federal governments ability to create money for anything they want, we could take money from the existing military budget easily to pay for this.

 

[hadit]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

This is where the wheels fall off your tricycle. No one is against people getting an education, if they want one and are willing to work for one. What they are against is throwing and education at those who will either not graduate or will take a major that results in a very expensive piece of paper that does little good in the real world. You're making assumptions that invalidate your own position.

No need to get upset. The question is not regarding getting an education. Its getting an education they dont have to pay for. Plenty of people go to college now and dont graduate so thats not an issue. The exposure to college is more important. The different concepts one learns and the specific education in a chosen field. Lots of people go to college to find out what they want to do or discover it while there.

And again we would be in the position of paying people to enrich themselves in a time when there is not only enough money to do that, but we are running massive deficits every single year. It is a luxury we cannot afford.

There is plenty of money to do this. Even assuming you were not aware the federal governments ability to create money for anything they want, we could take money from the existing military budget easily to pay for this.

Yes, I often hear that argument, and it's easy to simply say, "take it from here". Have you considered the real impact of a serious reduction in our military outlays? Even though our military actions have gotten us into a lot of places we really don't want to be in, just pulling out can have disasterous effects, as we see in Iraq with ISIS.

 

[Asclepias]

Like most things, its not going to work flawlessly out of the box. People who make things happen know that its an ongoing process of practice, theory, and then more practice until you get it right and even then there will still be some that fall between the cracks. Giving everyone a free college education will result in a more educated populace that are able to critically think making better decisions and benefiting the country. Its amazing to me that the ones that cry about people being on welfare would also be against educating those same people so they wont be on welfare.

This is where the wheels fall off your tricycle. No one is against people getting an education, if they want one and are willing to work for one. What they are against is throwing and education at those who will either not graduate or will take a major that results in a very expensive piece of paper that does little good in the real world. You're making assumptions that invalidate your own position.

No need to get upset. The question is not regarding getting an education. Its getting an education they dont have to pay for. Plenty of people go to college now and dont graduate so thats not an issue. The exposure to college is more important. The different concepts one learns and the specific education in a chosen field. Lots of people go to college to find out what they want to do or discover it while there.

And again we would be in the position of paying people to enrich themselves in a time when there is not only enough money to do that, but we are running massive deficits every single year. It is a luxury we cannot afford.

There is plenty of money to do this. Even assuming you were not aware the federal governments ability to create money for anything they want, we could take money from the existing military budget easily to pay for this.

Yes, I often hear that argument, and it's easy to simply say, "take it from here". Have you considered the real impact of a serious reduction in our military outlays? Even though our military actions have gotten us into a lot of places we really don't want to be in, just pulling out can have disasterous effects, as we see in Iraq with ISIS.

Yes I have considered the impact of being a less bellicose country. There are countries that have little to no military and they do just fine. I think its just a very lame excuse to say taking a few billion from the military budget will cause a problem. if you were ever in the military you know the waste that goes on there.

 

[hadit]

This is where the wheels fall off your tricycle. No one is against people getting an education, if they want one and are willing to work for one. What they are against is throwing and education at those who will either not graduate or will take a major that results in a very expensive piece of paper that does little good in the real world. You're making assumptions that invalidate your own position.

No need to get upset. The question is not regarding getting an education. Its getting an education they dont have to pay for. Plenty of people go to college now and dont graduate so thats not an issue. The exposure to college is more important. The different concepts one learns and the specific education in a chosen field. Lots of people go to college to find out what they want to do or discover it while there.

And again we would be in the position of paying people to enrich themselves in a time when there is not only enough money to do that, but we are running massive deficits every single year. It is a luxury we cannot afford.

There is plenty of money to do this. Even assuming you were not aware the federal governments ability to create money for anything they want, we could take money from the existing military budget easily to pay for this.

Yes, I often hear that argument, and it's easy to simply say, "take it from here". Have you considered the real impact of a serious reduction in our military outlays? Even though our military actions have gotten us into a lot of places we really don't want to be in, just pulling out can have disasterous effects, as we see in Iraq with ISIS.

Yes I have considered the impact of being a less bellicose country. There are countries that have little to no military and they do just fine. I think its just a very lame excuse to say taking a few billion from the military budget will cause a problem. if you were ever in the military you know the waste that goes on there.

There is a lot of waste in welfare programs too. In fact, we could probably find funding for a lot of things is we just held every federal department to fiscal accountability. Heck, just restricting budgets to increase by no more than inflation would help a lot. All of a sudden, you'd see these efforts to pretend inflation doesn't exist evaporate.

 

[oldsoul]

Instead of providing "free College", why don't we simply make sure ALL HIGH SCHOOL graduates can read? Would that not have a much bigger impact on society as a whole? Or maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just raise the national graduation rate to say 99%

That would help as well but its not feasible to think just learning to read will truly educate everyone..

I am not saying it would "truly educate everyone", I am saying that it would have a bigger impact on society to have a completely literate citizentry. How can you possibly argue against having a literate citizentry? It is the basis of all further learning. How many truely bright people are "left behind" simply because they cannot read?

College isnt the top.

No, it is not the top of adulthood. In this case I was refering to it as the top of the "education ladder". To clarify, I consider "grad school" to be the same as college, they do happen at the same place, in most instances.

Children should be prepared for college by the high schools

This is exactly my piont. We, as a society, cannot effectivly do this for huge amounts of our youth. So why put the cart (college education) before the horse (high school education)? It is insane to even argue that a small percentage of high acheiving college kids will have a greater impact on society as a whole than a completely literate citizentry. I do not understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

 

[oldsoul]

There are countries that have little to no military and they do just fine.

Name one country that has little to no military, and has become a world player in any area.

 

[Asclepias]

No need to get upset. The question is not regarding getting an education. Its getting an education they dont have to pay for. Plenty of people go to college now and dont graduate so thats not an issue. The exposure to college is more important. The different concepts one learns and the specific education in a chosen field. Lots of people go to college to find out what they want to do or discover it while there.

And again we would be in the position of paying people to enrich themselves in a time when there is not only enough money to do that, but we are running massive deficits every single year. It is a luxury we cannot afford.

There is plenty of money to do this. Even assuming you were not aware the federal governments ability to create money for anything they want, we could take money from the existing military budget easily to pay for this.

Yes, I often hear that argument, and it's easy to simply say, "take it from here". Have you considered the real impact of a serious reduction in our military outlays? Even though our military actions have gotten us into a lot of places we really don't want to be in, just pulling out can have disasterous effects, as we see in Iraq with ISIS.

Yes I have considered the impact of being a less bellicose country. There are countries that have little to no military and they do just fine. I think its just a very lame excuse to say taking a few billion from the military budget will cause a problem. if you were ever in the military you know the waste that goes on there.

There is a lot of waste in welfare programs too. In fact, we could probably find funding for a lot of things is we just held every federal department to fiscal accountability. Heck, just restricting budgets to increase by no more than inflation would help a lot. All of a sudden, you'd see these efforts to pretend inflation doesn't exist evaporate.

Yes there is a lot of waste in the welfare system. i agree that some funds could be taken from there as well.

 

[Asclepias]

Instead of providing "free College", why don't we simply make sure ALL HIGH SCHOOL graduates can read? Would that not have a much bigger impact on society as a whole? Or maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just raise the national graduation rate to say 99%

That would help as well but its not feasible to think just learning to read will truly educate everyone..

I am not saying it would "truly educate everyone", I am saying that it would have a bigger impact on society to have a completely literate citizentry. How can you possibly argue against having a literate citizentry? It is the basis of all further learning. How many truely bright people are "left behind" simply because they cannot read?

College isnt the top.

No, it is not the top of adulthood. In this case I was refering to it as the top of the "education ladder". To clarify, I consider "grad school" to be the same as college, they do happen at the same place, in most instances.

Children should be prepared for college by the high schools

This is exactly my piont. We, as a society, cannot effectivly do this for huge amounts of our youth. So why put the cart (college education) before the horse (high school education)? It is insane to even argue that a small percentage of high acheiving college kids will have a greater impact on society as a whole than a completely literate citizentry. I do not understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

I dont think reading would have a bigger impact on society just knowing how to read than getting a college education or even an exposure to one. If that was the case then those people that know how to read know would be getting into college. Its not just the reading. Its the knowledge that you can do something with it. If you have no hope reading is not going to help you.

In this case (putting the cart before the horse) will benefit those that are leaving school. There is nothing to say we cant do both. A serious look at our education system will tell you it needs overhauling. Talk with grade school educators and they will tell you the same. I went to school in the ghetto and believe me most people can read. its what they are learning from that reading that is holding them back in a lot of instances.

 

[Asclepias]

There are countries that have little to no military and they do just fine.

Name one country that has little to no military, and has become a world player in any area.

Japan, Switzerland off the top of my head. I dont think being a "world player" is something that should be at the top of our list until we get our country in order. I'm surprised you listed add on in your question.

 

[oldsoul]

There are countries that have little to no military and they do just fine.

Name one country that has little to no military, and has become a world player in any area.

Japan, Switzerland off the top of my head. I dont think being a "world player" is something that should be at the top of our list until we get our country in order. I'm surprised you listed add on in your question.

Whether it "should" be or not, the fact is we are a world player, and without an effective defense, the rest matters none. Last I knew the two contries you mentioned fall into one or more of the following categories:

1. Not worth conquest, in the estimation of those who would.
2. Have little to nothing to offer would be conquerers.
3. Have very powerful (militarily) allies who are sworn to defend them.

So, without our own means to effectivly defend ourselves, who would?

 

[Asclepias]

There are countries that have little to no military and they do just fine.

Name one country that has little to no military, and has become a world player in any area.

Japan, Switzerland off the top of my head. I dont think being a "world player" is something that should be at the top of our list until we get our country in order. I'm surprised you listed add on in your question.

Whether it "should" be or not, the fact is we are a world player, and without an effective defense, the rest matters none. Last I knew the two contries you mentioned fall into one or more of the following categories:

1. Not worth conquest, in the estimation of those who would.
2. Have little to nothing to offer would be conquerers.
3. Have very powerful (militarily) allies who are sworn to defend them.

So, without our own means to effectivly defend ourselves, who would?

Taking a few billion from the defense budget wouldnt keep us from defending ourselves. Practically everyone knows that.

 

[oldsoul]

Instead of providing "free College", why don't we simply make sure ALL HIGH SCHOOL graduates can read? Would that not have a much bigger impact on society as a whole? Or maybe we should broaden the scope a bit and just raise the national graduation rate to say 99%

That would help as well but its not feasible to think just learning to read will truly educate everyone..

I am not saying it would "truly educate everyone", I am saying that it would have a bigger impact on society to have a completely literate citizentry. How can you possibly argue against having a literate citizentry? It is the basis of all further learning. How many truely bright people are "left behind" simply because they cannot read?

College isnt the top.

No, it is not the top of adulthood. In this case I was refering to it as the top of the "education ladder". To clarify, I consider "grad school" to be the same as college, they do happen at the same place, in most instances.

Children should be prepared for college by the high schools

This is exactly my piont. We, as a society, cannot effectivly do this for huge amounts of our youth. So why put the cart (college education) before the horse (high school education)? It is insane to even argue that a small percentage of high acheiving college kids will have a greater impact on society as a whole than a completely literate citizentry. I do not understand why this is so difficult to comprehend.

I dont think reading would have a bigger impact on society just knowing how to read than getting a college education or even an exposure to one. If that was the case then those people that know how to read know would be getting into college. Its not just the reading. Its the knowledge that you can do something with it. If you have no hope reading is not going to help you.

In this case (putting the cart before the horse) will benefit those that are leaving school. There is nothing to say we cant do both. A serious look at our education system will tell you it needs overhauling. Talk with grade school educators and they will tell you the same. I went to school in the ghetto and believe me most people can read. its what they are learning from that reading that is holding them back in a lot of instances.

"According to a study conducted in late April by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institute of Literacy, 32 million adults in the U.S. can't read." huffingtonpost.com.
So, you are saying that the 32 million adults who cannot read, have a smaller impact on society that the relatively small percentage of people who would qualify, under the OP's stipulations, for "free" college?