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

[Asclepias]

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.

And my question is, why are you setting that goal in the first place? Setting a pointless goal is, well, pointless, and the very fact that you want us to consider pursuing it implies that you think it's a worthy goal. Why do you think it is a goal worth pursuing?

Who said it was pointless? You were just asked to answer the question. You dont answer a question with a question unless you require clarification of what the question is asking. Its pretty cut and dried so there should be no need for clarification.

A goal is pointless if you have no reason for setting it. You set a goal to lose weight, if you are overweight. Otherwise, why bother? You set a goal to stop smoking if you are a smoker. Otherwise, why bother? You want society to set a goal of secondary education at no cost to the student if you think it's too expensive now. Otherwise, why bother? Now, if you believe it is too expensive, you've identified a problem and your "goal" is a solution to that problem.

No goal is pointless and there is always a reason for it. However that reason does not have to be a problem. To use your example plenty of people make a goal to lose or gain weight for a number of reason. You may lose weight to play a role in a film for example. Your claim that there has to be a problem to create a goal lacks evidence of being true. All that aside the question is not about the reason. Its about the decision no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

Whether you call it a problem or not, even in your example there is a reason to set and pursue the goal. You want America to decide to pursue this goal. For what reason should America do that? Or do you maintain there is no reason to do this? If there's no reason to do it, I, and most everyone else, would say no.

Thats the point. No one said it was a problem You guys are the only ones saying there has to be a problem. The OP never asked america to pursue the goal. The question was if this was a goal that should be pursued. Like I said before every goal has a reason. That reason just doesnt have to be a problem as you guys are claiming and isnt relevant to the question. The OP cannot supply you with reasons for saying yes or no. You have to decide that for yourself.

 

[hadit]

And my question is, why are you setting that goal in the first place? Setting a pointless goal is, well, pointless, and the very fact that you want us to consider pursuing it implies that you think it's a worthy goal. Why do you think it is a goal worth pursuing?

Who said it was pointless? You were just asked to answer the question. You dont answer a question with a question unless you require clarification of what the question is asking. Its pretty cut and dried so there should be no need for clarification.

A goal is pointless if you have no reason for setting it. You set a goal to lose weight, if you are overweight. Otherwise, why bother? You set a goal to stop smoking if you are a smoker. Otherwise, why bother? You want society to set a goal of secondary education at no cost to the student if you think it's too expensive now. Otherwise, why bother? Now, if you believe it is too expensive, you've identified a problem and your "goal" is a solution to that problem.

No goal is pointless and there is always a reason for it. However that reason does not have to be a problem. To use your example plenty of people make a goal to lose or gain weight for a number of reason. You may lose weight to play a role in a film for example. Your claim that there has to be a problem to create a goal lacks evidence of being true. All that aside the question is not about the reason. Its about the decision no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

Whether you call it a problem or not, even in your example there is a reason to set and pursue the goal. You want America to decide to pursue this goal. For what reason should America do that? Or do you maintain there is no reason to do this? If there's no reason to do it, I, and most everyone else, would say no.

Thats the point. No one said it was a problem You guys are the only ones saying there has to be a problem. The OP never asked america to pursue the goal. The question was if this was a goal that should be pursued. Like I said before every goal has a reason. That reason just doesnt have to be a problem as you guys are claiming and isnt relevant to the question. The OP cannot supply you with reasons for saying yes or no. You have to decide that for yourself.

If we're not trying to solve a problem, then I don't think there are good reasons to do it. So no. A student should be required to have some skin in the game, whether that's in the form of payment for the education or some years of community service.

Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

 

[Asclepias]

Who said it was pointless? You were just asked to answer the question. You dont answer a question with a question unless you require clarification of what the question is asking. Its pretty cut and dried so there should be no need for clarification.

A goal is pointless if you have no reason for setting it. You set a goal to lose weight, if you are overweight. Otherwise, why bother? You set a goal to stop smoking if you are a smoker. Otherwise, why bother? You want society to set a goal of secondary education at no cost to the student if you think it's too expensive now. Otherwise, why bother? Now, if you believe it is too expensive, you've identified a problem and your "goal" is a solution to that problem.

No goal is pointless and there is always a reason for it. However that reason does not have to be a problem. To use your example plenty of people make a goal to lose or gain weight for a number of reason. You may lose weight to play a role in a film for example. Your claim that there has to be a problem to create a goal lacks evidence of being true. All that aside the question is not about the reason. Its about the decision no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

Whether you call it a problem or not, even in your example there is a reason to set and pursue the goal. You want America to decide to pursue this goal. For what reason should America do that? Or do you maintain there is no reason to do this? If there's no reason to do it, I, and most everyone else, would say no.

Thats the point. No one said it was a problem You guys are the only ones saying there has to be a problem. The OP never asked america to pursue the goal. The question was if this was a goal that should be pursued. Like I said before every goal has a reason. That reason just doesnt have to be a problem as you guys are claiming and isnt relevant to the question. The OP cannot supply you with reasons for saying yes or no. You have to decide that for yourself.

If we're not trying to solve a problem, then I don't think there are good reasons to do it. So no. A student should be required to have some skin in the game, whether that's in the form of payment for the education or some years of community service.

Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

There you go. Thats all you had to do according to the OP.

 

[oldsoul]

Like I said before every goal has a reason

This is my point, which you seemed to be arguing against. As said above you can call it a problem or you can call it a reason, it doesn't matter. There is a driving force behind setting a goal. I, for one am quite curious as to the driving force that would be behinfd this goal.
And for the record, I have already wheighed in with a direct answer, sorry you missed it.

 

[Asclepias]

Like I said before every goal has a reason

This is my point, which you seemed to be arguing against. As said above you can call it a problem or you can call it a reason, it doesn't matter. There is a driving force behind setting a goal. I, for one am quite curious as to the driving force that would be behinfd this goal.
And for the record, I have already wheighed in with a direct answer, sorry you missed it.

There is a difference. A problem is a sub group under reasons. A reason for setting a goal could be a problem or it could be "nice to have". Yes I missed your direct answer. It sounded like you needed to know a reason before answering the question.

 

[320 Years of History]

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

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.

 

[320 Years of History]

Who said it was pointless? You were just asked to answer the question. You dont answer a question with a question unless you require clarification of what the question is asking. Its pretty cut and dried so there should be no need for clarification.

A goal is pointless if you have no reason for setting it. You set a goal to lose weight, if you are overweight. Otherwise, why bother? You set a goal to stop smoking if you are a smoker. Otherwise, why bother? You want society to set a goal of secondary education at no cost to the student if you think it's too expensive now. Otherwise, why bother? Now, if you believe it is too expensive, you've identified a problem and your "goal" is a solution to that problem.

No goal is pointless and there is always a reason for it. However that reason does not have to be a problem. To use your example plenty of people make a goal to lose or gain weight for a number of reason. You may lose weight to play a role in a film for example. Your claim that there has to be a problem to create a goal lacks evidence of being true. All that aside the question is not about the reason. Its about the decision no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

Whether you call it a problem or not, even in your example there is a reason to set and pursue the goal. You want America to decide to pursue this goal. For what reason should America do that? Or do you maintain there is no reason to do this? If there's no reason to do it, I, and most everyone else, would say no.

Thats the point. No one said it was a problem You guys are the only ones saying there has to be a problem. The OP never asked america to pursue the goal. The question was if this was a goal that should be pursued. Like I said before every goal has a reason. That reason just doesnt have to be a problem as you guys are claiming and isnt relevant to the question. The OP cannot supply you with reasons for saying yes or no. You have to decide that for yourself.

If we're not trying to solve a problem, then I don't think there are good reasons to do it. So no. A student should be required to have some skin in the game, whether that's in the form of payment for the education or some years of community service.

Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

TY for your direct answer to the OP's question.

Why do you believe that one's, a student's, enhanced prospects for a more "successful" future resulting from being a high performer in college, does not constitute "skin in the game?"

Please respond with full recognition of the third bullet in the OP. It states as one of the requirements to receive a free college (or trade school) education that one "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)."

Note:
I know that four years/eight semesters is considered the "normal" duration one should take to complete most college degrees even though colleges and universities don't stipulate any specific time period. I don't know what the corresponding time period is for trade school programs. If it's relevant to your reply, add one additional "semester/trimester/quarter" to whatever is "normal" for a given trade school certification to arrive at what I/my would consider as the trade school comparable duration to 4.5 (calendar) years/nine semesters of college.

 

[Pop23]

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).

So, what you are saying is that the dumb should subsidize the smart?

Should the sick subsidize the healthy?

No, that is not what I was saying or asking.

What I was asking is, as I've plainly stated several times, this: should we, as a nation, aim to make a college education (or trade school one if that's what one chooses instead) free to qualified individuals?

Why that is such a difficult question, so difficult that folks either can't answer it plainly, or feel some need to recast it, is beyond me.

It's not at all difficult to answer. I did so quite effectively.

Ever grown up poor? I have.

25 to 40 hours a week working plus attending school.

Try it and then tell me how this country will define who "qualifies".

Maybe make the more affluent work those hours? What do you think those GPA's will be?

Maybe make the more affluent school districts do with minimal financing so they have the same resources as the poorer school districts?

So, why is it that you propose that the dumb subsidize the smart and the poor subsidize the affluent?

 

[hadit]

A goal is pointless if you have no reason for setting it. You set a goal to lose weight, if you are overweight. Otherwise, why bother? You set a goal to stop smoking if you are a smoker. Otherwise, why bother? You want society to set a goal of secondary education at no cost to the student if you think it's too expensive now. Otherwise, why bother? Now, if you believe it is too expensive, you've identified a problem and your "goal" is a solution to that problem.

No goal is pointless and there is always a reason for it. However that reason does not have to be a problem. To use your example plenty of people make a goal to lose or gain weight for a number of reason. You may lose weight to play a role in a film for example. Your claim that there has to be a problem to create a goal lacks evidence of being true. All that aside the question is not about the reason. Its about the decision no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

Whether you call it a problem or not, even in your example there is a reason to set and pursue the goal. You want America to decide to pursue this goal. For what reason should America do that? Or do you maintain there is no reason to do this? If there's no reason to do it, I, and most everyone else, would say no.

Thats the point. No one said it was a problem You guys are the only ones saying there has to be a problem. The OP never asked america to pursue the goal. The question was if this was a goal that should be pursued. Like I said before every goal has a reason. That reason just doesnt have to be a problem as you guys are claiming and isnt relevant to the question. The OP cannot supply you with reasons for saying yes or no. You have to decide that for yourself.

If we're not trying to solve a problem, then I don't think there are good reasons to do it. So no. A student should be required to have some skin in the game, whether that's in the form of payment for the education or some years of community service.

Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

TY for your direct answer to the OP's question.

Why do you believe that one's, a student's, enhanced prospects for a more "successful" future resulting from being a high performer in college, does not constitute "skin in the game?"

Please respond with full recognition of the third bullet in the OP. It states as one of the requirements to receive a free college (or trade school) education that one "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)."

Note:
I know that four years/eight semesters is considered the "normal" duration one should take to complete most college degrees even though colleges and universities don't stipulate any specific time period. I don't know what the corresponding time period is for trade school programs. If it's relevant to your reply, add one additional "semester/trimester/quarter" to whatever is "normal" for a given trade school certification to arrive at what I/my would consider as the trade school comparable duration to 4.5 (calendar) years/nine semesters of college.

Think about what you are proposing. You want society to pay for a student to gain a college education with no gain for society as a result. The ONLY requirement you place on the student is to achieve a certain grade level. If society is going to pay for it, why not require the graduate to work for society for a while? If we pay for their medical degree, they do their internship at a hospital in a poor neighborhood for low wages. If we pay for their engineering degree, they work for a state government for 4 years at low wages. Art appreciation degrees result in 2 years picking up trash, etc. THAT'S how you get skin in the game. What you are proposing is for society to pay students to enrich themselves.

 

[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).

So, what you are saying is that the dumb should subsidize the smart?

Should the sick subsidize the healthy?

No, that is not what I was saying or asking.

What I was asking is, as I've plainly stated several times, this: should we, as a nation, aim to make a college education (or trade school one if that's what one chooses instead) free to qualified individuals?

Why that is such a difficult question, so difficult that folks either can't answer it plainly, or feel some need to recast it, is beyond me.

It's not at all difficult to answer. I did so quite effectively.

Ever grown up poor? I have.

25 to 40 hours a week working plus attending school.

Try it and then tell me how this country will define who "qualifies".

Maybe make the more affluent work those hours? What do you think those GPA's will be?

Maybe make the more affluent school districts do with minimal financing so they have the same resources as the poorer school districts?

So, why is it that you propose that the dumb subsidize the smart and the poor subsidize the affluent?

Green:
If you did, I missed it. Apologies. Did you answer yes or no?

Pink:
No, I didn't grow up poor. All of my mentorees did, abjectly poor in fact. All of them who have gone to college graduated cum laude or higher. I am certain folks from equally poor, less poor or not poor at all backgrounds graduated with lower GPAs than they, if only because most students do. The woman who was my nanny was both poor and black (in the 1940-'50s), yet she graduated with honors from Catholic University. In and of itself, poverty is not the cause of one's inability to perform well in college or high school.

More importantly, my proposal isn't intended to benefit bright high performers who also are poor nor is it intended to help affluent families send their kids to college. Those folks, as the anecdote I shared earlier illustrates, will obtain or have, respectively, the financial support/means required to go to college. The people whom I feel are most often left out of the promise of obtaining higher education (assuming they are academically qualified) are the folks in the middle, the folks who are both too poor to get the aid my mentorees can and not wealthy enough to self-fund their college degree.

Blue:
"This country" need not define who qualifies if it were to adopt my proposal. I've already done that in the OP.

Red:
I reiterate: I have not proposed that "the dumb subside the smart and the poor subsidize the affluent." I'm happy and willing to engage with you in a discussion of the "in scope" topics for this thread, but not if you persist in recasting my words as though they mean or intend things I have not said.

 

[320 Years of History]

No goal is pointless and there is always a reason for it. However that reason does not have to be a problem. To use your example plenty of people make a goal to lose or gain weight for a number of reason. You may lose weight to play a role in a film for example. Your claim that there has to be a problem to create a goal lacks evidence of being true. All that aside the question is not about the reason. Its about the decision no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

Whether you call it a problem or not, even in your example there is a reason to set and pursue the goal. You want America to decide to pursue this goal. For what reason should America do that? Or do you maintain there is no reason to do this? If there's no reason to do it, I, and most everyone else, would say no.

Thats the point. No one said it was a problem You guys are the only ones saying there has to be a problem. The OP never asked america to pursue the goal. The question was if this was a goal that should be pursued. Like I said before every goal has a reason. That reason just doesnt have to be a problem as you guys are claiming and isnt relevant to the question. The OP cannot supply you with reasons for saying yes or no. You have to decide that for yourself.

If we're not trying to solve a problem, then I don't think there are good reasons to do it. So no. A student should be required to have some skin in the game, whether that's in the form of payment for the education or some years of community service.

Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

TY for your direct answer to the OP's question.

Why do you believe that one's, a student's, enhanced prospects for a more "successful" future resulting from being a high performer in college, does not constitute "skin in the game?"

Please respond with full recognition of the third bullet in the OP. It states as one of the requirements to receive a free college (or trade school) education that one "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)."

Note:
I know that four years/eight semesters is considered the "normal" duration one should take to complete most college degrees even though colleges and universities don't stipulate any specific time period. I don't know what the corresponding time period is for trade school programs. If it's relevant to your reply, add one additional "semester/trimester/quarter" to whatever is "normal" for a given trade school certification to arrive at what I/my would consider as the trade school comparable duration to 4.5 (calendar) years/nine semesters of college.

Think about what you are proposing. You want society to pay for a student to gain a college education with no gain for society as a result. The ONLY requirement you place on the student is to achieve a certain grade level. If society is going to pay for it, why not require the graduate to work for society for a while? If we pay for their medical degree, they do their internship at a hospital in a poor neighborhood for low wages. If we pay for their engineering degree, they work for a state government for 4 years at low wages. Art appreciation degrees result in 2 years picking up trash, etc. THAT'S how you get skin in the game. What you are proposing is for society to pay students to enrich themselves.

Red:
It seems clear to me that society as a whole, thus the nation, gains by there being a greater quantity of individuals who have more rather than less education.

Blue:
I don't have any inherent objection to adding that stipulation, nor am I insistent that it be added.

Green:
My proposal didn't go so far as to propose funding post baccalaureate degrees. I'm okay with that, but it's not what I proposed. I proposed college (undergrad), not grad school.

Purple:

• To the extent that one is interested in the subject matter, cannot any education be deemed "personal enrichment?"
• Do you truly see the creation/enablement of an overall increase in mental acuity among the citizenry as not being a benefit to society?
• Do you truly see as the singular benefit of, say, majoring in art history, languages, philosophy and other liberal arts as being solely that of developing one's specific knowledge of the subject matter itself?

Pink:
Judging by your comments in pink text, you have a very narrow definition of what it means to have "skin the game." "Skin" is not always and only determinable by a quantifiable measure such as job pay, money spent, etc. The "skin" one has in a game is that which one risks -- losing, not obtaining, yielding to another, etc. -- by either not "playing" or not "playing well." Not everything risked by not being able to (if one wants and is qualified to) go to college, and by not doing well once there, can be measured using the criteria you've identified.

Just for the sake of the discussion, earlier in this thread I provided a link that identifies the difference in potential earnings between a college graduate and one who does not complete a degree. You should read the content found at that link. After doing so, I bid you tell me how foregoing a college degree obtained within the standards my OP defines constitutes "nothing risked," "no skin in the game." On the contrary, one has "skin the game" even before opting to go to college; it doesn't disappear merely because one does or does not go.

 

[hadit]

Whether you call it a problem or not, even in your example there is a reason to set and pursue the goal. You want America to decide to pursue this goal. For what reason should America do that? Or do you maintain there is no reason to do this? If there's no reason to do it, I, and most everyone else, would say no.

Thats the point. No one said it was a problem You guys are the only ones saying there has to be a problem. The OP never asked america to pursue the goal. The question was if this was a goal that should be pursued. Like I said before every goal has a reason. That reason just doesnt have to be a problem as you guys are claiming and isnt relevant to the question. The OP cannot supply you with reasons for saying yes or no. You have to decide that for yourself.

If we're not trying to solve a problem, then I don't think there are good reasons to do it. So no. A student should be required to have some skin in the game, whether that's in the form of payment for the education or some years of community service.

Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

TY for your direct answer to the OP's question.

Why do you believe that one's, a student's, enhanced prospects for a more "successful" future resulting from being a high performer in college, does not constitute "skin in the game?"

Please respond with full recognition of the third bullet in the OP. It states as one of the requirements to receive a free college (or trade school) education that one "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)."

Note:
I know that four years/eight semesters is considered the "normal" duration one should take to complete most college degrees even though colleges and universities don't stipulate any specific time period. I don't know what the corresponding time period is for trade school programs. If it's relevant to your reply, add one additional "semester/trimester/quarter" to whatever is "normal" for a given trade school certification to arrive at what I/my would consider as the trade school comparable duration to 4.5 (calendar) years/nine semesters of college.

Think about what you are proposing. You want society to pay for a student to gain a college education with no gain for society as a result. The ONLY requirement you place on the student is to achieve a certain grade level. If society is going to pay for it, why not require the graduate to work for society for a while? If we pay for their medical degree, they do their internship at a hospital in a poor neighborhood for low wages. If we pay for their engineering degree, they work for a state government for 4 years at low wages. Art appreciation degrees result in 2 years picking up trash, etc. THAT'S how you get skin in the game. What you are proposing is for society to pay students to enrich themselves.

Red:
It seems clear to me that society as a whole, thus the nation, gains by there being a greater quantity of individuals who have more rather than less education.

Blue:
I don't have any inherent objection to adding that stipulation, nor am I insistent that it be added.

Green:
My proposal didn't go so far as to propose funding post baccalaureate degrees. I'm okay with that, but it's not what I proposed. I proposed college (undergrad), not grad school.

Purple:

• To the extent that one is interested in the subject matter, cannot any education be deemed "personal enrichment?"
• Do you truly see the creation/enablement of an overall increase in mental acuity among the citizenry as not being a benefit to society?
• Do you truly see as the singular benefit of, say, majoring in art history, languages, philosophy and other liberal arts as being solely that of developing one's specific knowledge of the subject matter itself?

I foresee a lot of wastage if students literally have no more expected of them than to earn a certain grade average. There will be a lot of pressure to give artificially high grades just to keep numbers up and taxpayer money coming in.

 

[320 Years of History]

Thats the point. No one said it was a problem You guys are the only ones saying there has to be a problem. The OP never asked america to pursue the goal. The question was if this was a goal that should be pursued. Like I said before every goal has a reason. That reason just doesnt have to be a problem as you guys are claiming and isnt relevant to the question. The OP cannot supply you with reasons for saying yes or no. You have to decide that for yourself.

If we're not trying to solve a problem, then I don't think there are good reasons to do it. So no. A student should be required to have some skin in the game, whether that's in the form of payment for the education or some years of community service.

Don't fix it if it isn't broken.

TY for your direct answer to the OP's question.

Why do you believe that one's, a student's, enhanced prospects for a more "successful" future resulting from being a high performer in college, does not constitute "skin in the game?"

Please respond with full recognition of the third bullet in the OP. It states as one of the requirements to receive a free college (or trade school) education that one "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)."

Note:
I know that four years/eight semesters is considered the "normal" duration one should take to complete most college degrees even though colleges and universities don't stipulate any specific time period. I don't know what the corresponding time period is for trade school programs. If it's relevant to your reply, add one additional "semester/trimester/quarter" to whatever is "normal" for a given trade school certification to arrive at what I/my would consider as the trade school comparable duration to 4.5 (calendar) years/nine semesters of college.

Think about what you are proposing. You want society to pay for a student to gain a college education with no gain for society as a result. The ONLY requirement you place on the student is to achieve a certain grade level. If society is going to pay for it, why not require the graduate to work for society for a while? If we pay for their medical degree, they do their internship at a hospital in a poor neighborhood for low wages. If we pay for their engineering degree, they work for a state government for 4 years at low wages. Art appreciation degrees result in 2 years picking up trash, etc. THAT'S how you get skin in the game. What you are proposing is for society to pay students to enrich themselves.

Red:
It seems clear to me that society as a whole, thus the nation, gains by there being a greater quantity of individuals who have more rather than less education.

Blue:
I don't have any inherent objection to adding that stipulation, nor am I insistent that it be added.

Green:
My proposal didn't go so far as to propose funding post baccalaureate degrees. I'm okay with that, but it's not what I proposed. I proposed college (undergrad), not grad school.

Purple:

• To the extent that one is interested in the subject matter, cannot any education be deemed "personal enrichment?"
• Do you truly see the creation/enablement of an overall increase in mental acuity among the citizenry as not being a benefit to society?
• Do you truly see as the singular benefit of, say, majoring in art history, languages, philosophy and other liberal arts as being solely that of developing one's specific knowledge of the subject matter itself?

I foresee a lot of wastage if students literally have no more expected of them than to earn a certain grade average. There will be a lot of pressure to give artificially high grades just to keep numbers up and taxpayer money coming in.

Insofar as you anticipate a "lot of wastage," please show how, with regard, not to the means, but to the end itself -- providing a college education for qualified individuals -- and its merit as an end worth seeking to achieve, that the overall waste exceeds the overall gains. If you feel you can only show the "wastage" in terms of the means to providing that end, open a new thread in the CDZ that references this one and do so.

(I've not opened a thread of the sort I bid you to because not enough folks who've voted in the poll for this thread have indicated they feel the end is worth seeking. I won't create a thread to discuss how to achieve an outcome if most folks don't want to obtain that outcome to begin with. FWIW, I was surprised to find that most folks have voted no with regard to whether the outcome is one they'd want to see materialize.)

 

[HenryBHough]

Why not make EVERYTHING free to everybody all the time?

Until it's all gone and nobody makes anything anymore!

Would that not be hope and change?

 

[320 Years of History]

Why not make EVERYTHING free to everybody all the time?

Until it's all gone and nobody makes anything anymore!

Would that not be hope and change?

reductio ad absurdum

 

[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.

 

[Pop23]

Why not make EVERYTHING free to everybody all the time?

Until it's all gone and nobody makes anything anymore!

Would that not be hope and change?

reductio ad absurdum

His Nanny taught him that

 

[320 Years of History]

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?"

 

[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.

 

[320 Years of History]

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?