what would be the consequences of furthering free education?

[bradly1101]

My parents met at Ohio State in the fifties, they said it was practically free (4 years). When I went to college I tried to get a grant, but they said my dad had too much money for me to get a grant. I was 26 and just had to get loans.
The Reagan model seemed to be adopted nationwide.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/pascale...her-education-need-to-go-back-to-the-fifties/

The article is pretty much a Narrative of the Fall, which focuses on California as the exemplar of All That Was Good and All That Was Lost. In the 1950s, in the author’s telling, California set up a higher ed arcadia of vigorous public higher education, practically free, open to all, and it was this government-led investment that, along with subsidies for basic research and infrastructure spending, set off the Californian economic miracle.


The villain of the story is, predictably enough, Ronald Reagan. First, as Governor of California, he clipped the wings of the system, leading to its eventual gutting. Then, obviously, as he took his ideas to Washington, he paved the way for deregulation and public underinvestment which explains the awfulness of our current predicament.

He goes on to say it was unsustainable/inevitable, but I think we can do better.

 

[Vic]

The only reason there's the "you have to go to college to get a good job"-attitude is because government schools are bad.

Anyone who thinks that the solution is to make governments in charge of college lacks critical problem solving skills (probably because the government schools didn't teach them).

I'm far from a proponent of government, but I'd say that you need to examine your own critical thinking skills.
The majority of students in this country go to publicly owned colleges and universities. It could be argued that the government has already been in charge of colleges since the Morrill Acts.
And the average private school diploma isn't necessarily anymore valuable than the average public school diploma. I'm not opposed to private schools but they are by no means a cure all.
So your argument more or less fails. In the meantime, some level of government involvement in education does provide for the standardization, consistency, and access that people want and expect.

 

[piasabird]

New York state tried this and they went into default.

 

[The_AC]

I'm far from a proponent of government, but I'd say that you need to examine your own critical thinking skills.
The majority of students in this country go to publicly owned colleges and universities. It could be argued that the government has already been in charge of colleges since the Morrill Acts.
And the average private school diploma isn't necessarily anymore valuable than the average public school diploma. I'm not opposed to private schools but they are by no means a cure all.
So your argument more or less fails. In the meantime, some level of government involvement in education does provide for the standardization, consistency, and access that people want and expect.

Like how they "expect" 13 years of formal classroom education to not be enough for a minimum wage job?

 

[piasabird]

Take a look at community colleges! About 1/3 of the funding comes from the Federal Government. If you are really poor apply for a Pell Grant by filling out a Free Application For Federal Student Aid.

https://fafsa.ed.gov/

There is lots of free money for poor people. However, if you have a job or your parents own a fairly good income you will not get much. Then people can usually get student loans that have to be paid back. The Lower middle class get almost nothing.

Even at the High School Level local high Schools get funding from the Federal Government and the State Government as well as local property taxes and various grants and maybe even some local businesses and corporations.

 

[Zorkorist]

In other words, the Government already provides free education.

Maybe you progressive thinkers should think about eliminating the Department of Education?

-John

 

[Vic]

In other words, the Government already provides free education.

Maybe you progressive thinkers should think about eliminating the Department of Education?

-John

Unless you want to start paying my property taxes, the government does not provide free education.

 

[Newell Steamer]

What if we simplified that but also expanded it to include legit tech schools?

I think tech schools are the key. America was great when we had manual labor jobs. Certainly support the sciences, engineering, medicine, etc. but, lets be honest, we need a skilled labor work force.

Would companies increase their education requirements?

They already have. If you didn't get an MBA, related to the corporate business environment, you can kiss a sick 6 digit salary goodbye.

Would the labor market be flooded?

The market is already flooded with useless degrees. If you teach someone the skill of making something with their hands, they can find work anywhere.

Would we fix the economy for many generations?

Yes. Because we will have our own home grown and willing to work skilled labor workforce. With higher quality - no more facades and $10 an hour drywallers.

Am I being a moron and missed something very obvious?

No. Thank you for restoring my faith in these forums - I was honestly getting worried,...

 

[Exterous]

I would be leery of this idea mainly because the glut of money has not proved to be beneficial to education. We spend a lot of money for high tech education in high schools (usually seen as 'free') for very little return. We spend so much that the lack of iPads at the LA Public schools was called a Civil Rights issue. Yet Finland is doing quite well with a fraction of the technology expenditure. Sure in some instances where the proper training\support\programs are provided there is an increase in efficiency but those are in the vast minority especially when compared to budgetary outlays.

How is this going to reign in tuition? Caps on tuition costs? Federal money to pay the going rate? The last thing colleges need is more tuition money going into them. IMO the influx of large sums of loan money is one of the reasons the cycle of tuition hikes has been perpetuated. If we are talking caps then that means government meddling in education. Given the countless examples of bad education policy there is little evidence to suggest government has even the slightest clue as to what its doing when it comes to education people.

I think the best solution would be to slowly make it harder to borrow money for college. Colleges need students to attend - more than just the rich or the subsidized can cover on their own. Slowly the costs will come down as colleges are forced to become more efficient with their expenditures and students might have to give up their fancy, plush dorm rooms

There is lots of free money for poor people. However, if you have a job or your parents own a fairly good income you will not get much. Then people can usually get student loans that have to be paid back. The Lower middle class get almost nothing.

I agree that the burden is becoming more and more noticeable on the middle class. Like much in the country the lower income earners have assistance, the rich have the means but the middle class has neither

 

[Sonikku]

It would become a nightmare like Germany.