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

[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.

"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?

No. I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time and even then some will slip through the cracks. Its one thing to be unable to read as a child. Its quite another to be an adult and not take responsibility in attending the free classes that teach adults how to read that exist now. Even so I personally know some millionaires that cant read so I dont think thats the only way to learn.

 

[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?

No. I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time and even then some will slip through the cracks. Its one thing to be unable to read as a child. Its quite another to be an adult and not take responsibility in attending the free classes that teach adults how to read that exist now. Even so I personally know some millionaires that cant read so I dont think thats the only way to learn.

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.

In this case (putting the cart before the horse) will benefit those that are leaving school.

So, which is it? Or is it both? This is why it is so frustrating for me to talk with a liberal. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time

And then you say it can be both. Where do you stand, is it one, the other, or both?

 

[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.

"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?

No. I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time and even then some will slip through the cracks. Its one thing to be unable to read as a child. Its quite another to be an adult and not take responsibility in attending the free classes that teach adults how to read that exist now. Even so I personally know some millionaires that cant read so I dont think thats the only way to learn.

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.

In this case (putting the cart before the horse) will benefit those that are leaving school.

So, which is it? Or is it both? This is why it is so frustrating for me to talk with a liberal. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time

And then you say it can be both. Where do you stand, is it one, the other, or both?

Its both. As far as I am concerned they are seperate issues. Thats why its so irritating to talk to conservatives. They have little faith in their ability to make more than one thing happen at a time. You are talking about adults that have already graduated or kids that are up and coming. Continue to work on the kids in school and their reading but prioritize the people getting ready to go to college now.

 

[oldsoul]

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?
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.
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?

No. I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time and even then some will slip through the cracks. Its one thing to be unable to read as a child. Its quite another to be an adult and not take responsibility in attending the free classes that teach adults how to read that exist now. Even so I personally know some millionaires that cant read so I dont think thats the only way to learn.

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.

In this case (putting the cart before the horse) will benefit those that are leaving school.

So, which is it? Or is it both? This is why it is so frustrating for me to talk with a liberal. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time

And then you say it can be both. Where do you stand, is it one, the other, or both?

Its both. As far as I am concerned they are seperate issues. Thats why its so irritating to talk to conservatives. They have little faith in their ability to make more than one thing happen at a time. You are talking about adults that have already graduated or kids that are up and coming. Continue to work on the kids in school and their reading but prioritize the people getting ready to go to college now.

It is not me who said that we cannot do both. However, I am trying to determine if you think one is more impactful to society at large, and it seems as though you beleive that providing college for a few is more impactful than reading for all. I disagree. If everyone has the ability to read, everyone has the ability to further their education as well, regardless of their access to college.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Red:

• Wait a minute....I never proposed "throwing and [sic] education at" anyone. I take the first part of the "red" sentence as, in part, implying that college education (or trade school) would be required of high school grads. That is not at all what I've proposed. I identified specific criteria one had to meet in order to receive a free college education, and quite frankly, if past trends remain consistent, the quantity of folks who meet the criteria will be fewer than the quantity who do not. I have not proposed giving a free college education to low academic performers.
• What college degrees, in your opinion, are they that one might obtain and that will do one "little good in the real world?" What, in your opinion, is the measure of "do little good?"
  
  To the best of my knowledge, any college degree generally offers more value than no college degree.
  • The Value of a College Degree
    
  • College Calculus: What's the real value of higher education?
  • Examining the Value of a College Degree -- This is a collection of essays on the matter of a degree's value. Among them:
    • When the Humanities Are Worth It
      
    • How a College Education Contributes to Long-Term Success in Life
      
    • Out of Focus: Career Outcomes Should Not Be the Measure of An Undergraduate Degree
      
    • Is College Worth It? Yes, But Not Always

 

[Asclepias]

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?

No. I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time and even then some will slip through the cracks. Its one thing to be unable to read as a child. Its quite another to be an adult and not take responsibility in attending the free classes that teach adults how to read that exist now. Even so I personally know some millionaires that cant read so I dont think thats the only way to learn.

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.

In this case (putting the cart before the horse) will benefit those that are leaving school.

So, which is it? Or is it both? This is why it is so frustrating for me to talk with a liberal. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time

And then you say it can be both. Where do you stand, is it one, the other, or both?

Its both. As far as I am concerned they are seperate issues. Thats why its so irritating to talk to conservatives. They have little faith in their ability to make more than one thing happen at a time. You are talking about adults that have already graduated or kids that are up and coming. Continue to work on the kids in school and their reading but prioritize the people getting ready to go to college now.

It is not me who said that we cannot do both. However, I am trying to determine if you think one is more impactful to society at large, and it seems as though you beleive that providing college for a few is more impactful than reading for all. I disagree. If everyone has the ability to read, everyone has the ability to further their education as well, regardless of their access to college.

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

 

[oldsoul]

"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?

No. I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time and even then some will slip through the cracks. Its one thing to be unable to read as a child. Its quite another to be an adult and not take responsibility in attending the free classes that teach adults how to read that exist now. Even so I personally know some millionaires that cant read so I dont think thats the only way to learn.

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.

In this case (putting the cart before the horse) will benefit those that are leaving school.

So, which is it? Or is it both? This is why it is so frustrating for me to talk with a liberal. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time

And then you say it can be both. Where do you stand, is it one, the other, or both?

Its both. As far as I am concerned they are seperate issues. Thats why its so irritating to talk to conservatives. They have little faith in their ability to make more than one thing happen at a time. You are talking about adults that have already graduated or kids that are up and coming. Continue to work on the kids in school and their reading but prioritize the people getting ready to go to college now.

It is not me who said that we cannot do both. However, I am trying to determine if you think one is more impactful to society at large, and it seems as though you beleive that providing college for a few is more impactful than reading for all. I disagree. If everyone has the ability to read, everyone has the ability to further their education as well, regardless of their access to college.

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

 

[Asclepias]

No. I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time and even then some will slip through the cracks. Its one thing to be unable to read as a child. Its quite another to be an adult and not take responsibility in attending the free classes that teach adults how to read that exist now. Even so I personally know some millionaires that cant read so I dont think thats the only way to learn.

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.

In this case (putting the cart before the horse) will benefit those that are leaving school.

So, which is it? Or is it both? This is why it is so frustrating for me to talk with a liberal. These two statements seem to contradict each other.

I am saying that both things can be accomplished at the same time

And then you say it can be both. Where do you stand, is it one, the other, or both?

Its both. As far as I am concerned they are seperate issues. Thats why its so irritating to talk to conservatives. They have little faith in their ability to make more than one thing happen at a time. You are talking about adults that have already graduated or kids that are up and coming. Continue to work on the kids in school and their reading but prioritize the people getting ready to go to college now.

It is not me who said that we cannot do both. However, I am trying to determine if you think one is more impactful to society at large, and it seems as though you beleive that providing college for a few is more impactful than reading for all. I disagree. If everyone has the ability to read, everyone has the ability to further their education as well, regardless of their access to college.

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

 

[oldsoul]

So, which is it? Or is it both? This is why it is so frustrating for me to talk with a liberal. These two statements seem to contradict each other.
And then you say it can be both. Where do you stand, is it one, the other, or both?

Its both. As far as I am concerned they are seperate issues. Thats why its so irritating to talk to conservatives. They have little faith in their ability to make more than one thing happen at a time. You are talking about adults that have already graduated or kids that are up and coming. Continue to work on the kids in school and their reading but prioritize the people getting ready to go to college now.

It is not me who said that we cannot do both. However, I am trying to determine if you think one is more impactful to society at large, and it seems as though you beleive that providing college for a few is more impactful than reading for all. I disagree. If everyone has the ability to read, everyone has the ability to further their education as well, regardless of their access to college.

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

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%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

 

[Asclepias]

Its both. As far as I am concerned they are seperate issues. Thats why its so irritating to talk to conservatives. They have little faith in their ability to make more than one thing happen at a time. You are talking about adults that have already graduated or kids that are up and coming. Continue to work on the kids in school and their reading but prioritize the people getting ready to go to college now.

It is not me who said that we cannot do both. However, I am trying to determine if you think one is more impactful to society at large, and it seems as though you beleive that providing college for a few is more impactful than reading for all. I disagree. If everyone has the ability to read, everyone has the ability to further their education as well, regardless of their access to college.

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

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%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

No its not difficult to understand. Yes it was unclear why you thought it was ok to bring up a counter proposal that was not in the OP and when I made a counter proposal of letting everyone in the program that graduated you had an issue with it not being part of the OP. Here is the problem with your best and brightest proposal. What do we use to determine who is the best and brightest? Taking me as an example. I got horrible grades in high school but i was just as bright as the people that got straight A's. Once i went to college and my attitude was adjusted I out performed those same type of students.

 

[oldsoul]

It is not me who said that we cannot do both. However, I am trying to determine if you think one is more impactful to society at large, and it seems as though you beleive that providing college for a few is more impactful than reading for all. I disagree. If everyone has the ability to read, everyone has the ability to further their education as well, regardless of their access to college.

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

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%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

No its not difficult to understand. Yes it was unclear why you thought it was ok to bring up a counter proposal that was not in the OP and when I made a counter proposal of letting everyone in the program that graduated you had an issue with it not being part of the OP. Here is the problem with your best and brightest proposal. What do we use to determine who is the best and brightest? Taking me as an example. I got horrible grades in high school but i was just as bright as the people that got straight A's. Once i went to college and my attitude was adjusted I out performed those same type of students.

First of all, the "best and brightest" is not my proposal, so I cannot offer an answer to that as I disagree with the original proposal.
I see your point on counter-proposals and apologize.

Off topic observation:
Why is it that there are so many posters here who, for what ever reason, do not admit when they have made a mistake? So often the conversation simply dies when one party has been proven to have made a mistake. Seems to me that it is a societal norm to do such things, just walk away instead of admiting you made a mistake. I know I have been guilty of this in the past. Is this merely a flaw in human nature? Interesting ponderance I guess, not revanent to the conversation at hand though.

 

[Asclepias]

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

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%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

No its not difficult to understand. Yes it was unclear why you thought it was ok to bring up a counter proposal that was not in the OP and when I made a counter proposal of letting everyone in the program that graduated you had an issue with it not being part of the OP. Here is the problem with your best and brightest proposal. What do we use to determine who is the best and brightest? Taking me as an example. I got horrible grades in high school but i was just as bright as the people that got straight A's. Once i went to college and my attitude was adjusted I out performed those same type of students.

First of all, the "best and brightest" is not my proposal, so I cannot offer an answer to that as I disagree with the original proposal.
I see your point on counter-proposals and apologize.

Off topic observation:
Why is it that there are so many posters here who, for what ever reason, do not admit when they have made a mistake? So often the conversation simply dies when one party has been proven to have made a mistake. Seems to me that it is a societal norm to do such things, just walk away instead of admiting you made a mistake. I know I have been guilty of this in the past. Is this merely a flaw in human nature? Interesting ponderance I guess, not revanent to the conversation at hand though.

I appreciate the apology.

It seems to take someone that is personally developed to admit they are wrong. I think the problem on here is that so many people deflect and use ad homenims that people just say fugg it and leave not feeling its necessary to show respect for the other person by admitting they are wrong.

 

[Tresha91203]

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.

It needs to be figured out on a smaller scale first. This is the benefit of states and their governments. States try their experiments, each different but aiming for the same goal. Once we have something that works, THEN go national. We cannot afford trial and error on a federal level.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

It needs to be figured out on a smaller scale first. This is the benefit of states and their governments. States try their experiments, each different but aiming for the same goal. Once we have something that works, THEN go national. We cannot afford trial and error on a federal level.

Red:
Fine, but that would be a matter of means, not ends. This thread is about whether one considers of merit the end, not whether there be practical means, or what they be, for achieving the end.

 

[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.

It needs to be figured out on a smaller scale first. This is the benefit of states and their governments. States try their experiments, each different but aiming for the same goal. Once we have something that works, THEN go national. We cannot afford trial and error on a federal level.

Thats fine with me though I disagree we cant afford it on a federal level. With all these people working on it someone should be able to come up with a good model. if Germany and UAE can do it then the US should be able to do it.

 

[Tresha91203]

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.

It needs to be figured out on a smaller scale first. This is the benefit of states and their governments. States try their experiments, each different but aiming for the same goal. Once we have something that works, THEN go national. We cannot afford trial and error on a federal level.

Red:
Fine, but that would be a matter of means, not ends. This thread is about whether one considers of merit the end, not whether there be practical means, or what they be, for achieving the end.

You still have not addressed those who are providing free to them college education and how it is failing.

In a perfect world, we would ALL be educated, healthy, happy, financially stable, and have a pink unicorn. We can't MAKE any of it happen on sheer will.

 

[320 Years of History]

Its both. As far as I am concerned they are seperate issues. Thats why its so irritating to talk to conservatives. They have little faith in their ability to make more than one thing happen at a time. You are talking about adults that have already graduated or kids that are up and coming. Continue to work on the kids in school and their reading but prioritize the people getting ready to go to college now.

It is not me who said that we cannot do both. However, I am trying to determine if you think one is more impactful to society at large, and it seems as though you beleive that providing college for a few is more impactful than reading for all. I disagree. If everyone has the ability to read, everyone has the ability to further their education as well, regardless of their access to college.

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

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%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

 

[oldsoul]

It is not me who said that we cannot do both. However, I am trying to determine if you think one is more impactful to society at large, and it seems as though you beleive that providing college for a few is more impactful than reading for all. I disagree. If everyone has the ability to read, everyone has the ability to further their education as well, regardless of their access to college.

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

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%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

It needs to be figured out on a smaller scale first. This is the benefit of states and their governments. States try their experiments, each different but aiming for the same goal. Once we have something that works, THEN go national. We cannot afford trial and error on a federal level.

Red:
Fine, but that would be a matter of means, not ends. This thread is about whether one considers of merit the end, not whether there be practical means, or what they be, for achieving the end.

You still have not addressed those who are providing free to them college education and how it is failing.

In a perfect world, we would ALL be educated, healthy, happy, financially stable, and have a pink unicorn. We can't MAKE any of it happen on sheer will.

Purple:
Note/Disclaimer: I was referred to posts 38 and 106 as references for states that have attempted to offer free college to their citizens. I see no links in post #106; thus I've not responded to the comments in that post.

Earlier, someone pointed out that several states have the aim of providing a tuition free college education at any/all state universities. In reviewing each and every one of them, I find that various writers have taken exception not with the end itself, but with the methods (and their consequences) by which that end is achieved.

Let's look at the arguments the Norbert Michael presented in the editorial referenced in post #38.

• Louisiana -- As Norbert Michael writes, Louisiana's program, the Taylor Opportunity Program (TOPS), guarantees free a college education to "all high school students qualify as long as they have a C average (2.5 GPA) and at least an 18 on the ACT. Mr. Michael argues against the program based on the following:
  • Despite college attendance rates having increased, as a result of the program, by ~20%, "the program doesn’t really provide free education. In one way or another, someone pays for it."
    
    I do not consider the mere increase in the number of folks attending college to be a relevant factor with regard to my OP proposal. I don't care who does or does not attend college. I care that people who have a demonstrated facility at above average academic achievement are not denied the opportunity to obtain a college degree merely because they lack the funds. I also have no desire to pay for (make free) the college education of individuals who do not deliver as high performers in or before attending college. Lastly, if one does not graduate in the specified time frame, again, I have no interest in giving one a free college education.
    
    As for who pays for the free degree and how the funds are obtained or distributed are matters of means, not ends, and thus not in scope for this thread.
  • The increase in state college enrollment as a result of TOPS "strains universities’ existing resources. So the transfer of money has the natural tendency to lead to expanded facilities, faculty, and staff." Also, Mr. Michael contends, "Smaller schools are the ones least able to sustain the permanently higher costs associated with the new TOPS-generated revenue stream."
    
    To that I ask, "What exactly is the problem with that?" Would one want to see lower professor-to-student ratios than when enrollment was lower? I recognize that the additional costs for facilities and payroll is among the cost of bringing the end I've proposed to fruition.
    
    Again, the question this thread asks is whether the end is worthy of achieving, not how much it will cost or how to pay for it.

In short, the TOPS program and the end about which I asked aren't the same things insofar as many people who'd qualify for the TOPS program would not qualify for the one I've proposed.

As an aside, it's surprising to me that nobody has proposed adding a "need based" criterion to the criteria I listed in the OP. I've seen several folks, as well as Mr. Michael, remark that my proposal would benefit middle class and upper class kids/families. I would have expected that one of those folks proposed some sort of income/wealth criterion; none did. I can assume they didn't because they don't overall see the proposed objective as one worthy of achieving; thus they saw it irrelevant to propose a "need" criterion.

As goes a need-based criterion for qualifying to receive a free college education, I'm not opposed to the idea. In a few years time, I will have put three kids through boarding school and college, maybe grad school too. I/they don't have a need to be given a free college education, so I don't mind that a need-based criterion would eliminate my own kids from getting one for free. I suspect that others who are similarly situated as I would feel the same way. The people for whom I'm concerned, the people for whom I think my proposed objective is necessary and "worth it," are people who are (1) bright, capable and willing, (2) not so poor they can receive ample funding and (3) who are not well off enough to not need it, yet who have shown by their high school performance, and who show by their college performance, that they deserve to and that we as a nation will benefit incrementally from having given it to them.

 

[320 Years of History]

I think its more impactful to get the free education started for everyone graduating. Not only will it impact that group it will also provide hope for those in school behind them knowing they have a free education waiting. I dont understand why you believe that to be "a few"? Again there are free reading classes for adults and yes we still need to do a better job of teaching kids to read. With the hope of a college education awaiting them I know they will be more invested in learning to read.

By definition it must be "the few". A GPA of 3.0 (a "B" average) or higher indicates an above average grasp of the material. Unless of course you believe that somehow the "many" can be above average. As for " the free education started for everyone graduating." That is not what we are discussing here, we are discussing the OP's definition of those who qualify, and as one of the qualifacations is a GPA at or above 3.0, one would have to be part of "the few". I don't see any way it could be different. Unless, of course, there is some sort of static basis on which a person is graded (such as if you get 70% of the questions correct, you have earned a "C", as an example). However, such a static basis is inherently flawed as a basis for finding the "best and brightest".

I think youre mixed up. Even if we only took B average students it would still motivate the following classes to get that B average. Its short sighted to think its only a few and not use your long term vision to see the results. Its weird you only want to limit it to B students as far as discussion but you are the one that brought up adults that have already graduated but dont know how to read which has nothing to do with the OP.

I think you are missing MY point. If we use a static basis to determine who gets the "free" college, we will not get only the "best and brightest", which is, as I understand it, the purpose of the proposal. We would also get those who are bright, but not the brightest.

I am not the one who has limited it to B students, the OP did.

I brought up illiterate adults as a counter proposal, is that difficult to understand? Was I some how unclear when I said:

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%

So is a counter-proposal off limits because it does not directly relate to the OP? Oh, wait, this is a debate is it not? And in a debate all sides are given the opportunity to state their case. Part of stating "my case" is to issue the counter-proposal. Does that help you to understand why I would bring adult illiteracy up?

So long as the counterproposal is one identifying ends one wants to see achieved re: providing post K-12 education/training to Americans, not means to that (or a related) end, I have no issue with them being presented, and I would and will consider them to be "in scope" for the thread.

Well my counter proposal is that we:

1. Ensure that at least 99% of high school graduates can read at a grade level of 10th or higher. Then, and only then:
2. Raise the national graduation rate to 99% or higher.

Once these to milestones are reached and maintained for a minimum of 5 years, I will be willing to entertain further funding of post-secondary schooling. Until then, it is my belief that we need to focus on the basics, and get them right first. One would not attempt to teach a person algebra, if said person has not mastered basic math first. Likewise, we should not attempt post-secondary school, until we have mastered secondary school.

Green:
I have no objection to those stated aims.

Pink:
I agree with you as goes any given individual. The idea that we, as a nation, would deny opportunity, specifically that offered and entailed by higher education, to qualified individuals who indeed have "mastered the basics," but who simply cannot muster the funds to get one, is anathema to me.