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

[320 Years of History]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

 

[Fishlore]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

When the first public schools opened, most students attended for only a year or two. A century ago the school leaving age was raised to 16, meaning at least some secondary education for all. We started as an agrarian society, minimum literacy and math were all that most people needed. The Industrial Revolution raised the stakes for good jobs steadily and significantly. In the 21st century the trend is growing faster than ever. The kids need the education and the economy needs the educated workers. It's a no brainer.

 

[jwoodie]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

Sounds like a plan to benefit white, middle class students?

 

[oldsoul]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

My biggest issue with it is entrusting the government (even if only as a "middle-man"), to facilitate further education. Despite rising cost, we are falling further and further behind other industrialized nations. What would prevent this from continuing into post-secondary schooling in your suggestion? Absent some sort of way to prevent the government to have ANY way of influencing the individual school (or the "industry" as a whole), I would have to say no. If such a preventative measure where suggested, I would consider it based on it's merit, and any evidence of probability of success.

 

[saveliberty]

With high enough standards AND two years military service.

 

[JoeMoma]

It's already free to those that qualify through academic scholarships.

The thing is we are trying to send many to college that are not qualified.

 

[320 Years of History]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

Sounds like a plan to benefit white, middle class students?

Blue:
It's not a plan at all that I asked about. It's a question about an end that one either thinks should be aimed for or should not. A plan specifically identifies how one will accomplish a given outcome, and I went out of my way to note that the question is not about how we'd bring the outcome to fruition.

Off Topic/Red:
As goes who would qualify, race has nothing to do with it. One meets the criteria or one does not. Every single minority student I know personally, as with every non-minority student whom I know personally, and that includes present and former students, has met or exceeded the qualifications I noted.

Over the course of my adult life, I've had occasion to lean the objective performance measures of literally hundreds, perhaps even a few thousands, of minority and non-minority students. Moreover, the minimum qualifications I noted aren't inordinately difficult to achieve. For example, I was part of the undergrad recruiting team that went to Howard University in D.C. There, every student who applied for a job or internship with my firm met the criteria and not one of them was a non-minority. So I am confident that race and socioeconomic position alone are not factors determining why one might or might not meet the criteria.

 

[320 Years of History]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

My biggest issue with it is entrusting the government (even if only as a "middle-man"), to facilitate further education. Despite rising cost, we are falling further and further behind other industrialized nations. What would prevent this from continuing into post-secondary schooling in your suggestion? Absent some sort of way to prevent the government to have ANY way of influencing the individual school (or the "industry" as a whole), I would have to say no. If such a preventative measure where suggested, I would consider it based on it's merit, and any evidence of probability of success.

Red:
In the long run, if graduate education were shown to be necessary, nothing.

Blue:
"Facilitate further?" I don't understand what that has do with whether the goal of making a college education free should or should not be among the goals we seek to achieve.

"Influencing the individual school?" Again, I don't understand what that has do with whether the goal of making a college education free should or should not be among the goals we seek to achieve.

Other:
I just asked if the end -- free college education for qualified students -- should be something we aim to make available. I didn't even posit that the government needed to be the vehicle that makes it possible, in part because I expressly stated that the question isn't about means, only about one end. I asked only whether it's something that, as a nation, we should or should not strive to make happen.

 

[Unkotare]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

First of all, it can't be free. So put that aside right off. Also, if one of your conditions is that a student finish an undergraduate degree in a certain time with a certain GPA, how do you offer it 'free'? Does the student pay upfront and get paid back if he meets the criteria, or is it 'free' (as if such a thing were possible) and the student must pay back the amount if he does't meet the criteria? Either way, it's untenable.


However, to answer the OP: NO.

 

[320 Years of History]

First of all, it can't be free. So put that aside right off. Also, if one of your conditions is that a student finish an undergraduate degree in a certain time with a certain GPA, how do you offer it 'free'? Does the student pay upfront and get paid back if he meets the criteria, or is it 'free' (as if such a thing were possible) and the student must pay back the amount if he does't meet the criteria? Either way, it's untenable.


However, to answer the OP: NO.

Blue:
So do you believe that to which we, as a nation, commit to make happen is beyond our ability to make happen?

Red:
Out of scope! Please read the OP.

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No. We already provide a "free" public education when you're a child. If you want to further your education as an adult then it's time to put on your big boy pants and act like one and pay for it yourself. We already have lots of people with college degrees who can't find jobs. Why would we want to put more out there? You don't need to have a college degree to earn a decent living. There are a lot of skilled jobs out there that pay well which you can learn by going to a two business or trade school.

 

[Unkotare]

...
So do you believe that to which we, as a nation, commit to make happen is beyond our ability to make happen?

Try again to craft a coherent question, and stop with the infantile coloring book nonsense. Quote what you want to address and address it.

 

[Unkotare]

...
Out of scope! Please read the OP......

You wrote it in the OP, not me.

 

[320 Years of History]

It's already free to those that qualify through academic scholarships.

The thing is we are trying to send many to college that are not qualified.

That happens to be true to some extent; however, the top 1% of high school grads aren't the kids about whom I'm most concerned with regard to the context of the thread question because those kids are going to get into and go to college anyway if they want to. I hardly think that only students who qualify for academic scholarships are the only ones who deserve to go to school for free. Moreover, quite often academic scholarships don't cover room and board which at some schools costs more than the actual tuition and books.

Frankly, it's the bright students, though not bright enough to get academic scholarships, and not sporting enough to get sports scholarships, who nonetheless would have better lives by having gotten a college education, but who cannot for economic reasons whose situation(s) inspired me to ask the thread question.

FWIW, lest you think the question has some personal driver, it doesn't. By the time any such policy be enacted, my kids each will have finished college, perhaps even finished grad school.

 

[320 Years of History]

...
Out of scope! Please read the OP......

You wrote it in the OP, not me.

Let me be clearer. Your red text is out of scope because "how" to make the end happen isn't part of what I've asked about. The question is about ends, not means.

 

[Unkotare]

The competitive nature of higher education in America is what has made it by far the best in the world. Public k-12 education, nobly intended and important in principle, lacks this essential competitiveness. Improving education is absolutely vital, but replacing the strength of one educational context with the weakness of another is utterly irrational.

 

[Unkotare]

...
Out of scope! Please read the OP......

You wrote it in the OP, not me.

Let me be clearer. Your red text is out of scope because "how" to make the end happen isn't part of what I've asked about. ....

If you didn't want to discuss it, why include it? In a prominent bullet list, no less.

 

[JoeMoma]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

Some schools are much more difficult than others, and rightly so. At the University I went to, a student who could earn a 2.5 GPA in engineering could most likely earn a 3.5 or better in business. You requirements listed in the OP could result in grade inflation. In order to bring in more "free" tuition, professors would be highly encouraged to handout more As and Bs.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[williepete]

We had a very nice young man with a biochemistry degree serve us our lunch Sunday at a local restaurant. (Not joking). I made sure to tip him 20%. It's our family policy not to tip over 15% for non STEM graduates.

So yeah. Put the taxpayers on the hook for producing more highly educated waiters, waitresses and bartenders.

And more English majors. We need a lot more English majors. They make great disgruntled Starbucks baristas. Nothing goes down better with your decaf, soy latte with an extra shot and cream than the whinny moans of crushed dreams and misplaced aspirations.