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.
Ok, fair enough. Answer to the original question: No.
Generally speaking, that which one does not pay for,
one does not treat with the same respect as that which one does pay for. Another way of putting it, most
people take better care of that which is theirs (and they presumably paid for), than that which is not theirs. Regardless of the entity paying for the education,
if the student (or someone the student is responsible to) does not have direct "skin in the game", they will, as a matter of human nature, have a tendancy to be less vigalant about utilizing it to their fullest ability. Also, as stated above, the competitive nature of a college education makes it far more usefull than it otherwise would be.
The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
I tend to agree that "skin in the game" plays one of the key roles in driving the zeal with which one pursues an end. The thing is that the criteria I defined require that the individuals for whom I propose making college free to them require that those folks be at least exceptional to some extent. I don't, however, agree that current financial contributions are the only meaningful forms of "skin" one can invest in "the game."
I don't have a lot of experience with the na'er do wells and low achievers of the world, but neither am I advocating giving them a free college education; I wouldn't do that as an individual, so I wouldn't ask my countrymen to do so either. I do, on the other hand, have a great deal of experience with above average and high achievers, with people who routinely exceed expectations, with self-motivated people, with people who recognize a good opportunity for what it is, and when one is handed to them, exploit it for all its worth.
With regard to young people obtaining an education, that experience includes my own three kids as well as a smattering of extremely disadvantaged (financially) but inherently bright kids whom I took on as mentorees. Among my mentorees, not one whom I have "kept on board," so to speak, has finished high school or college without being in the top five percent of their classes and earning at
cum laude honors at college. All my mentorees who've finished college have gone on to begin excellent careers and are contributing members of society. For every one of my birth children and long-term mentorees, their entire academic careers have been free to them, and each of my birth kids has graduated as "academic one percenters."
One might rightly ask, "Well, what 'skin in the game' had those young people seeing as I funded their educations and required no financial input from them?" When it comes to education, some, but clearly not all, young people realize that they are laying the foundation for nearly all that they will make come their way upon completing school. The people for whom I've proposed the idea of making their college education free must demonstrate prior to college that they appreciate the value of an education enough and that they are capable of excelling at being thus educated. The answer to his paragraphs question thus is simple. For each of them, along with the folks for whom I advocate making their college education free, the "skin" they have in it is their future.
For my kids that future surely results from differing motivations:
- My birth kids: I suppose it plausible that at some point they may have anticipated that among their grandparents, me, and their mother, they would find themselves with some sort of persistent financial support such as a trust fund. Well, though I cannot speak for their mother or grandparents, I made it clear to them that I had no intention of establishing a trust for them if they didn't perform "up to snuff" in school. The thing is that by performing "up to snuff," they won't in fact need that support; it'll become little more than a "nice to have." So for them, the "skin" is that of sort of an "all or nothing" proposition with regard to their having to establish their own financial futures and being able to maintain themselves in the manner to which I've made them accustomed. My kids each know that although I'll do whatever I can to help them make that happen, I'll only do it if they live up to my expectations -- that they succeed at being among the best at whatever they do -- of their academic and personal development.
- My mentoree "kids": For them, the "skin" is quite different, although the requirement to live up to my expectations, and the expectations themselves, are not. For these kids, the prospect of a life little different than that to which they were born is their "skin in the game." I have to believe that is a pretty powerful motivator for each of them can see quite clearly the differences between the opportunities that have come available to them, in comparison with those their "birth" peers haven't had, merely because they showed a good extent of intellectual acuity and applied it so they did/do well in school.
Take one of them, as an example, but for all my "kids," the story is much the same. She did quite well in high school, but in her academic endeavors and in extracurriculars. I advised her, as I do all my "kids," to apply to top schools that have large endowments and that are committed to making college possible for poor folks. Now in her case, even mustering the money to apply to multiple schools was no mean accomplishment. All the same, her chosen schools, Williams, Amherst and Brown, each provided her with a financial aid package that resulted in her having to pay what most of us would consider "nothing." (At one of them it was literally nothing, and that's where she chose to go.)
The second anecdote above is offered, not only to address the motivation factor you mentioned, but also to highlight the reality of affording U.S. higher education: kids from well off background and kids from very poor backgrounds can, provided they have the grades and experiences to merit it, go to pretty much any of the nation's top colleges. But
what about those from families that are neither sufficiently well off to pay for it on their own nor sufficiently poor to obtain a very generous aid package?
Sure, the kids for whom I'm proposing aren't the absolute top academic performers, but they have nonetheless performed well, better than average. I believe it's a waste of human resources to deny those kids a college education because they (their families) cannot muster the funds to send them to college. I believe that because as above average performers, they have clearly demonstrated they have "something" to contribute and that "something" should be developed so our society, and the individuals themselves, can benefit from its full potential.
How does my proposed objective -- free college for qualified individuals -- help us as a nation and as individuals? It does so in a few ways:
- In terms of ensuring intellectual advancement/superiority, it puts us ahead of, or in some cases on par with, the nations with which our citizens must compete in the global marketplace.
- It boosts the likely personal financial well being of more of our citizens.
- It establishes a clear and present reason for young people to be and learn the habits of higher achievers; it in itself provides a motivating factor for early life success to a segment of our society that otherwise is consigned to either advancing themselves or falling backward.
What my proposal is about is embarking on a strategic journey toward ensuring that "middle class" in the U.S. is something the rest of the world will aim for but not surpass.
Never send a battalion to take a hill if a regiment is available.
― Dwight D. Eisenhower
