what would be the consequences of furthering free education?

[rudeguy]

I need some help thinking through what could possibly happen if the government provided more than just primary schooling. I for sure don't think that everyone in the country needs a 4 year degree but there are many who could use a 2 year degree. Probably five times that number could use technical schooling.

So what would the long term consequences be if the government provided 2 year degrees and technical schooling? I know there are currently grants available if you meet a thousand different requirements. What if we simplified that but also expanded it to include legit tech schools?

Would companies increase their education requirements? Would the labor market be flooded? Would we fix the economy for many generations? Am I being a moron and missed something very obvious?

The only thing I am sure of if the last point.

 

[Zorkorist]

Governments kill smart people.

-John

 

[row]

considering the u.s. department of education is directly responsible thru its inept policies of having produced the worlds most expensive idiots, i say quit while we're ahead.

otherwise let's go the progressive route and reward mind numbing failure.

The United States spent more than $11,000 per elementary student in 2010 and more than $12,000 per high school student. When researchers factored in the cost for programs after high school education such as college or vocational training, the United States spent $15,171 on each young person in the system — more than any other nation covered in the report.

That sum inched past some developed countries and far surpassed others. Switzerland's total spending per student was $14,922 while Mexico averaged $2,993 in 2010. The average OECD nation spent $9,313 per young person.

As a share of its economy, the United States spent more than the average country in the survey. In 2010, the United States spent 7.3 percent of its gross domestic product on education, compared with the 6.3 percent average of other OECD countries. Denmark topped the list on that measure with 8 percent of its gross domestic product going toward education.

 

[Lithium381]

I need some help thinking through what could possibly happen if the government provided more than just primary schooling. I for sure don't think that everyone in the country needs a 4 year degree but there are many who could use a 2 year degree. Probably five times that number could use technical schooling.

So what would the long term consequences be if the government provided 2 year degrees and technical schooling? I know there are currently grants available if you meet a thousand different requirements. What if we simplified that but also expanded it to include legit tech schools?

Would companies increase their education requirements? Would the labor market be flooded? Would we fix the economy for many generations? Am I being a moron and missed something very obvious?

The only thing I am sure of if the last point.

the question is who would pay for it and how?

 

[Vic]

The only real negative is that it would effectively make such education a requirement for entry into the workforce.
The government is already doing this BTW, paying for 2 year technical degrees. It's called the military.

 

[Lithium381]

The only real negative is that it would effectively make such education a requirement for entry into the workforce.
The government is already doing this BTW, paying for 2 year technical degrees. It's called the military.

People can already get jobs without even having a HS diploma, or they're free to start their own business. Do you see a need that's not being met? Why hasn't the private sector tried it at least half-assed if there is an opportunity?

 

[glenn1]

We actually should provide less education to many children; a good number of them are no more educated after 10th grade than they are 5th and never will be due to lack of intellect or desire. Rather than putting more money into secondary education, I'd advocate we fix lower education so that no one gets promoted out of junior high without being literate and that an American high school diploma is actually worth something. Employers have rightly devalued high school diplomas to the point they're probably worth what a 6th grade education was 100 years ago.

 

[norseamd]

more educated and smarter

 

[Vic]

People can already get jobs without even having a HS diploma, or they're free to start their own business. Do you see a need that's not being met? Why hasn't the private sector tried it at least half-assed if there is an opportunity?

Where did I say that high school dropouts can't get jobs?

 

[Vic]

We actually should provide less education to many children; a good number of them are no more educated after 10th grade than they are 5th and never will be due to lack of intellect or desire. Rather than putting more money into secondary education, I'd advocate we fix lower education so that no one gets promoted out of junior high without being literate and that an American high school diploma is actually worth something. Employers have rightly devalued high school diplomas to the point they're probably worth what a 6th grade education was 100 years ago.

Only because most workers didn't have past a 6th grade education 100 years ago.

 

[Lithium381]

Where did I say that high school dropouts can't get jobs?

I'm saying the bar of minimum education to enter the workforce you propose isn't even standard now with HS AA or BA degrees/diplomas available..

 

[Moonbeam]

I would suggest looking at the problem differently. Suppose that a human being is a learning machine designed to learn huge quantities of things, that we are natural at it like a duck to water, and that we educate our children in a way that destroys all of that natural inclination and create people that don't want to know anything because what we teach is completely useless. Your question, then becomes, should we do more of this teaching people to hate learning.

What is the point of trying to solve a problem with more of what causes the problem in the first place. People punish their kids for doing wrong and then we punish them more when they rebel to that treatment, creating harder and harder criminals. I think we have taught people hate learning enough as it is.

 

[schneiderguy]

Why don't they make high school useful instead?

High school is a glorified day care. We were doing art projects in English and History even in my senior year. I took one class in high school that was actually useful (AP Comp Sci), and they got rid of it the year after I took it due to "budget cuts". The football team and the fashion design classes never had any budget issues

 

[unokitty]

I for sure don't think that everyone in the country needs a 4 year degree but there are many who could use a 2 year degree. Probably five times that number could use technical schooling.

Tennessee Governor Urges 2 Free Years of Community College and Technical School

Oregon Legislature: Free community college bill passes Senate

Lots of people, including me, think that cost has become a barrier to higher education.

Over the long run, that's not going to have a positive impact.

Uno

 

[rudeguy]

Tennessee Governor Urges 2 Free Years of Community College and Technical School

Oregon Legislature: Free community college bill passes Senate

Lots of people, including me, think that cost has become a barrier to higher education.

Over the long run, that's not going to have a positive impact.

Uno

Help me out here...

Are you saying the cost to the government is the main reason not to do it?

 

[JManInPhoenix]

When I was in HS, eons ago (late 70s), the most useful classes I took were typing & a real world economics class. In that economics class, we had a fake job with fake income but had to figure how out how to spend on things every month. Both of those classes had lifelong positive impact for me.

 

[ivwshane]

We actually should provide less education to many children; a good number of them are no more educated after 10th grade than they are 5th and never will be due to lack of intellect or desire. Rather than putting more money into secondary education, I'd advocate we fix lower education so that no one gets promoted out of junior high without being literate and that an American high school diploma is actually worth something. Employers have rightly devalued high school diplomas to the point they're probably worth what a 6th grade education was 100 years ago.

I actually agree with this, lower education is where the focus should be and right now the exact opposite is happening.
A good solid foundation is needed and the whole system prop ably needs to be overhauled. We need more classes that deal with real world issues like money handling/saving/investing 101 and more intro into trade classes. We should also have way smaller classes for k through 5.

 

[IGBT]

there is no such thing as "free". Your asking you neighbors to pay for your academic mental masturbation.

 

[unokitty]

Help me out here...

Are you saying the cost to the government is the main reason not to do it?

Oops.

No. I was trying to communicate that if the price was lower, more people would go to college.

In the specific cases of Tenn and Oregon, I think that it is great that they are considering making Community College free. And I hope that they do follow through and make it free.

Note that I don't think that higher education should be compulsory. Also note that most Community Colleges offer technical, as well as academic, programs.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to see US higher education start to take a 2 + 2 + 2 model. (2 years community college, 2 years udergraduate, and two years graduate with the opportunity to work a few years inbetween each.)

Uno

 

[UglyCasanova]

there is no such thing as "free". Your asking you neighbors to pay for your academic mental masturbation.

Agree it's not free, but unless that neighbor neither went to public schools, have kids that go to public schools, or benefited from living in an at least moderately educated society they can deal with it. Investing in education and infrastructure is one of the few worthwhile things that the government does, and unfortunately it blows far too much on things that really don't pay off in the long run like entitlement payments and the military industrial complex.

 

[compuwiz1]

I think the student loan thing has failed. Why not have people working as interns, in exchange for their college education? Providing useful services, but rather than be paid, they get to go to college. Depending on what kind of work they did as interns, it might also help them with good entry level job placement. The thought of more free stuff is just absurd.

 

[shady28]

I need some help thinking through what could possibly happen if the government provided more than just primary schooling. I for sure don't think that everyone in the country needs a 4 year degree but there are many who could use a 2 year degree. Probably five times that number could use technical schooling.

So what would the long term consequences be if the government provided 2 year degrees and technical schooling? I know there are currently grants available if you meet a thousand different requirements. What if we simplified that but also expanded it to include legit tech schools?

Would companies increase their education requirements? Would the labor market be flooded? Would we fix the economy for many generations? Am I being a moron and missed something very obvious?

The only thing I am sure of if the last point.

Things that are free and easy to get are not valued. It's like dirt vs gold.

If everyone gets a free AA, then an AA is what you'll need to flip burgers. As it is now, in most areas going to a community college is absolutely not out of reach. The tuition costs are very nominal if its local. A post-high school grad can easily work part time living at home and pay to get an AA. Now university, yeah that's different.

What would make more sense to me is to teach more trades in high school, after-hours, like they do football etc for those motivated to enroll in such a program. Make it not mandatory, and make it lead to a certification of some kind.

Being an AWS certified welder for example :

http://work.chron.com/salary-awscertified-welder-1424.html
" Nationally, the average income for welders in 2010 was $37,920. Entry-level positions averaged $24,490 per year.."

Now that's not major money, but it is definitely liveable. A household with two "average" certified welders would make almost 76k / yr, or about 45% above the national average household income.

 

[The_AC]

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).

 

[Spungo]

I can tell you exactly what would happen and what order it would happen.
-The program is initially very successful. Smart people rise to the top and we have smarter people.
-Special interest groups start to say free education is racist and sexist because all of the top classes in math and physics are filled with Asian men.
-Standards are lowered until everybody with a pulse is capable of getting a PhD in math.
-PhD becomes the new high school diploma, and you will need a PhD to work at McDonalds.
-Conservatives say the program is a failure and needs to be changed.
-Liberals say the conservatives are racist and sexist. What the program needs is more funding.
-Funding increases until education consumes 20% of GDP.
-Standards continue to get lower.
-Some guy starts a thread saying everybody should have 2 doctorate degrees.

 

[IGBT]

Agree it's not free, but unless that neighbor neither went to public schools, have kids that go to public schools, or benefited from living in an at least moderately educated society they can deal with it. Investing in education and infrastructure is one of the few worthwhile things that the government does, and unfortunately it blows far too much on things that really don't pay off in the long run like entitlement payments and the military industrial complex.

I'll meet you half way and agree funding STEM education benefits society..everything else is a academic jobs racket for flunkTards that can't get a real job that matters. If you are not studying STEM your are not going to get a ROI on your time. (Return On Investment).