Why we need free college education for all

[imagep]

This is what community college is for IMO.

Exactly. So going to community college is not going to college?

So higher education is for purposely delaying people from working? These kids should be working THROUGH college, even if it's a part-timer job at Starbucks. That's why we have Mr. Cheeto-Fingers in momma's basement working on that 2nd or 3rd degree. These kids were never forced to grow up, like the generations before them.

No, the purpose of higher education is up to the person who is getting it. It's not my call to make, it's not even any of my business. If someone wants to go to college to get an engineering degree, then thats their choice, if they want to study art history or sociology thats their choice also.

I believe that you fully understood what I meant when I said that there is no reason that we should hurry unprepared people into the workforce. We simply don't have an economic need to do that.

So we hurry them up to do what? Take away a job from a cashier at McDonalds? After all, we do have such a shortage of cashiers don't we?

 

[imagep]

We have the same thing in England..finish school..go on to college..and then get a university place..
We had so many graduates..that they ended up doing basic wage manual jobs..just to survive..

And all for free!!

It seems to me that the issue in England isn't education, it is a lack of jobs.

We are going to continue to see a lack of jobs as long as we continue to be able to produce more and more with less and less labor. Having fewer people in college, and a population with a lower average educational level will not solve that problem.

 

[molten_dragon]

No we don't. We have to many people going to college as it is

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

The value of college, has become so over inflated, that people with natural talent, get ignored in favor on the false belief, that "college educated" is the best.

That leaves out tons of people, completely capable of performing jobs, without 4 years of supposedly specialized education.

 

[cpwill]

As others have alluded to, our problem is not that we have sent too few kids to college. It is that we have too heavily subsidized the initial purchase of collegiate education, and not impressed upon our youngsters that at the end of all this they need to have a higher paying job to justify the years and thousands spent educating them. Learning to read Chaucer in the original Middle English is wonderful.... if you are actually intending to become a literature professor, or enter into some other profession that requires it. If your hope is to "go into, like, I don't know, some kind of business I guess", then your time could be better spent.

I got a liberal arts degree. I'm a huge fan of the well-roundedness of the liberal arts concept. But we have too many people with useless degrees who are now overburdened by college debt because we sold them the huge giant shiny lie that any college degree means a great job.

 

[cpwill]

The value of college, has become so over inflated, that people with natural talent, get ignored in favor on the false belief, that "college educated" is the best.

That leaves out tons of people, completely capable of performing jobs, without 4 years of supposedly specialized education.

Another excellent point. I work in a field dominated by those with no college degree. I have a Masters. I run into people who are better and smarter than me all the time - but employers would look at my resume and assume that somehow I'm three steps ahead of them. That's mistaking a credential for a capability.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Another excellent point. I work in a field dominated by those with no college degree. I have a Masters. I run into people who are better and smarter than me all the time - but employers would look at my resume and assume that somehow I'm three steps ahead of them. That's mistaking a credential for a capability.

The "requirement" for college is now largely used, especially by the gov't, to assure that the applicant is at least trainable (and promotable). It is no longer guaranteed that a HS diploma means that the person holding it can read, write or do basic math effectively. Not only do many employers want to assure that even their entry level employees are trainable they wish to be able to promote from within, so they tend to have "carreer paths" planned in advance. While I agree that this practice is wrong, I can hardly blame an employer from avoiding "discrimination" lawsuits since many morons sue when denied "access" to a job based on thinking that the one actually hired is "not no more smartest than I were".

 

[cpwill]

The "requirement" for college is now largely used, especially by the gov't, to assure that the applicant is at least trainable (and promotable). It is no longer guaranteed that a HS diploma means that the person holding it can read, write or do basic math effectively. Not only do many employers want to assure that even their entry level employees are trainable they wish to be able to promote from within, so they tend to have "carreer paths" planned in advance. While I agree that this practice is wrong, I can hardly blame an employer from avoiding "discrimination" lawsuits since many morons sue when denied "access" to a job based on thinking that the one actually hired is "not no more smartest than I were".

Bingo. All "Free" college education does is turn a college degree into the new HS Diploma, while wasting potentially productive years and trillions of dollars. In the meantime, those who won't do well at college but can develop marketable skills get shafted by getting squeezed out at the bottom. This idea doubles down on stupid.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Bingo. All "Free" college education does is turn a college degree into the new HS Diploma, while wasting potentially productive years and trillions of dollars. In the meantime, those who won't do well at college but can develop marketable skills get shafted by getting squeezed out at the bottom. This idea doubles down on stupid.

But it sure would guarantee higher taxes, more power for gov't and bonanza for the liberal teachers union, the "accredited" and politicians. How can you be against all that good stuff?

 

[cpwill]

But it sure would guarantee higher taxes, more power for gov't and bonanza for the liberal teachers union, the "accredited" and politicians. How can you be against all that good stuff?

Well, it wouldn't guarantee higher taxes. Because it would take workers out of the workforce for an additional 4 years, it would actually likely lower FICA contributions, and since it would provide only a semi-permeable barricade for non-college-educated workers, it would permanently lower their FICA and income contributions.

But it would absolutely be a boon to the education industry and lobby. That is certainly correct.

Hey, what's a little economic wreckage and deficit spending when you've got a chance to line the pockets of some political chums, eh?


More and more I suspect that this is the reason democrats accuse republicans of wanting to give money to the rich - they think we think like them.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Well, it wouldn't guarantee higher taxes. Because it would take workers out of the workforce for an additional 4 years, it would actually likely lower FICA contributions, and since it would provide only a semi-permeable barricade for non-college-educated workers, it would permanently lower their FICA and income contributions.

But it would absolutely be a boon to the education industry and lobby. That is certainly correct.

Hey, what's a little economic wreckage and deficit spending when you've got a chance to line the pockets of some political chums, eh?


More and more I suspect that this is the reason democrats accuse republicans of wanting to give money to the rich - they think we think like them.

Silly me! I was implying that "old school" thinking that taxation was needed to support gov't spending. I forgot that congress critters may now simply borrow money (in our names) to buy votes and do "good things". Education is not even a federal power granted by the Constitution, yet it is now the fastest growing (in expense), cabinet level, federal department. Without free college (for all?), who can possibly understand that the gov't may simply print/borrow and spend, without any need to balance the budget - I am too uneducated to keep up with the new federal gov't scheme, it appears.

 

[cpwill]

Silly me! I was implying that "old school" thinking that taxation was needed to support gov't spending. I forgot that congress critters may now simply borrow money (in our names) to buy votes and do "good things". Education is not even a federal power granted by the Constitution, yet it is now the fastest growing (in expense), cabinet level, federal department. Without free college (for all?), who can possibly understand that the gov't may simply print/borrow and spend, without any need to balance the budget - I am too uneducated to keep up with the new federal gov't scheme, it appears.

Well then it's a good thing for you that your intellectual superiors are here to tell you what to think, now, isn't it?

 

[wolfie]

It seems to me that the issue in England isn't education, it is a lack of jobs.

We are going to continue to see a lack of jobs as long as we continue to be able to produce more and more with less and less labor. Having fewer people in college, and a population with a lower average educational level will not solve that problem.

I am not a university graduate...but it seems to me that these people churned out from uni have no idea what is going on in the real world..they are fine with their targets and statistics but don't seem to have any common sense...

Maybe 6 months Uni and 6 months practical experience would solve this...

 

[donsutherland1]

Zalatix,

The NYT article you quote suggests that there are more barriers to success in college than money. The following section you quoted is relevant: "But the need to earn money brought one set of strains, campus alienation brought others, and ties to boyfriends not in school added complications. With little guidance from family or school officials, college became a leap that they braved without a safety net."

I agree that financial barriers to college completion via the current system of education financing can probably be improved by substituting more grants for loans and I would accept spending reductions elsewhere to fund a more robust grants program.

The issue of off-campus work is a more complex one and it isn't always related to paying one's college costs. Even as there is some literature that suggests an adverse relationship between hours worked off-campus and college performance, neither colleges nor policy makers have much control over such work. More on-campus opportunities might have some impact, but work hours will be more limited than off campus. The big problem here is that students have swapped study hours for work hours to the extent that surveys show many American college students now spend more time in class/lab than they do studying/preparing homework assignments (in the past students spent almost twice as much time on school work outside class than in-class). Less time devoted for school work reduces opportunities for knowledge reinforcement and retention.

Campus alienation is a non-financial factor. One's relationships is another non-financial factor. Lack of adequate guidance is another one. All of those non-financial factors can increase the risk of college failure. Even if colleges were free, those non-financial barriers would undermine college success. Moreover, free college education would not address the deficiencies in the primary and secondary school systems that undermine college readiness among numerous students.

 

[donsutherland1]

I am not a university graduate...but it seems to me that these people churned out from uni have no idea what is going on in the real world..they are fine with their targets and statistics but don't seem to have any common sense...

Maybe 6 months Uni and 6 months practical experience would solve this...

In today's society, there is pressure for specialization, which is important. The "general education" curriculum, for lack of a better description, which is comprised of liberal arts courses ranging from literature to philosophy, has been shrinking. One argument for fewer such credits is that students will 'never use them.'

That thinking is short-sighted. It is precisely those course that contribute to helping students develop a "big picture" view. Literature exposes students to the expression of ideas. Senior managers need to be good communicators if they are to align support for change, restructuring, etc. Philosophy helps one learn to organize one's thoughts. Clarity of thought and logical progression of thought help one make better pitches to prospective customers, in negotiations with suppliers, or with one's employees. History gives one a starting point for a range of scenarios in a changing business environment. Having some reference points for examining the impact of evolving markets or managing risk is better than starting from point zero each time.

Numerous senior business leaders have argued that new employees typically don't grasp the big picture so to speak. Without exposure to ideas or concepts that force them to look beyond their field of study, that is not a surprising outcome.

 

[ttwtt78640]

It seems to me that the issue in England isn't education, it is a lack of jobs.

We are going to continue to see a lack of jobs as long as we continue to be able to produce more and more with less and less labor. Having fewer people in college, and a population with a lower average educational level will not solve that problem.

What makes the US have more "college required" jobs? There are many jobs that cannot be "outsourced" effectively that do not require college; the trades, service and agricultural jobs. A degree in underwater basket weaving, or penguin migration routes, while granting a very prestigious shingle, does little to prepare one for an "in demand" carreer field in the USA. A lower average education is not a factor in many jobs, in fact, it may be seen as a plus, since I have been denied work for being "overqualified"; the rationale being that my initial training costs would exceed my value in time working for them - I would likely find "better" employment ASAP.

 

[WI Crippler]

In today's society, there is pressure for specialization, which is important. The "general education" curriculum, for lack of a better description, which is comprised of liberal arts courses ranging from literature to philosophy, has been shrinking. One argument for fewer such credits is that students will 'never use them.'

That thinking is short-sighted. It is precisely those course that contribute to helping students develop a "big picture" view. Literature exposes students to the expression of ideas. Senior managers need to be good communicators if they are to align support for change, restructuring, etc. Philosophy helps one learn to organize one's thoughts. Clarity of thought and logical progression of thought help one make better pitches to prospective customers, in negotiations with suppliers, or with one's employees. History gives one a starting point for a range of scenarios in a changing business environment. Having some reference points for examining the impact of evolving markets or managing risk is better than starting from point zero each time.

Numerous senior business leaders have argued that new employees typically don't grasp the big picture so to speak. Without exposure to ideas or concepts that force them to look beyond their field of study, that is not a surprising outcome.

Don,
Typically a bachelors degree will require some sort of basic intro to a few classes that would fall into these liberal arts categories, usually offering students a choice as to what may interest them. Some two year degrees will also require some sort of elective course that falls into a humanities category. What many people feel is wasted time in academia is the large class sizes and offerings of liberal arts degrees for which there is not a large market for such specialized areas of study. Having a bachelors degree in Philosophy doesn't offer a large market outside of teaching. It leads to an oversaturation of the market, which you could argue hampers the earning potential of those teachers with such a surplus of supply.

 

[jonny5]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/23/e...er-role-in-success.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2&hp&

Each showed the ability to do college work, even excel at it. But the need to earn money brought one set of strains, campus alienation brought others, and ties to boyfriends not in school added complications. With little guidance from family or school officials, college became a leap that they braved without a safety net.

The story of their lost footing is also the story of something larger — the growing role that education plays in preserving class divisions. Poor students have long trailed affluent peers in school performance, but from grade-school tests to college completion, the gaps are growing. With school success and earning prospects ever more entwined, the consequences carry far: education, a force meant to erode class barriers, appears to be fortifying them.

“Everyone wants to think of education as an equalizer — the place where upward mobility gets started,” said Greg J. Duncan, an economist at the University of California, Irvine. “But on virtually every measure we have, the gaps between high- and low-income kids are widening. It’s very disheartening.”

The growing role of class in academic success has taken experts by surprise since it follows decades of equal opportunity efforts and counters racial trends, where differences have narrowed. It adds to fears over recent evidence suggesting that low-income Americans have lower chances of upward mobility than counterparts in Canada and Western Europe.

How are you going to convince teachers to work for free? Textbook companies to supply free books? Companies to supply free materials for building classrooms? Energy producers to supply free electricity?

 

[donsutherland1]

Don,
Typically a bachelors degree will require some sort of basic intro to a few classes that would fall into these liberal arts categories, usually offering students a choice as to what may interest them. Some two year degrees will also require some sort of elective course that falls into a humanities category. What many people feel is wasted time in academia is the large class sizes and offerings of liberal arts degrees for which there is not a large market for such specialized areas of study. Having a bachelors degree in Philosophy doesn't offer a large market outside of teaching. It leads to an oversaturation of the market, which you could argue hampers the earning potential of those teachers with such a surplus of supply.

The percentage of graduation requirements comprised by general education courses had been falling. One study into the 1990s could be found here: Decline in General Education Programs: 1914-1993 | Intellectual Takeout (ITO)

I haven't seen any literature indicating much of a rebound since then.

Some of that decline has likely contributed to the problem I cited.

On the other point, I strongly agree with you. How to better align areas of study with market opportunities is a challenge. Today, there are pronounced shortages of graduates in some fields and a glut in others. Even as colleges/universities probably wouldn't like to assume such a role, I believe adequate academic advising should present students with labor market realities for the fields students are interested in studying. If a college is committed to the success of its graduates, seeking to give students their best chance of success once they graduate should be an important consideration. Providing reliable information about labor market realities (much of this information is in the public domain e.g., BLS) is consistent with such a role.

 

[NoC_T]

How are you going to convince teachers to work for free? Textbook companies to supply free books? Companies to supply free materials for building classrooms? Energy producers to supply free electricity?

Every one of Zalatix's ideas presuppose the existence of global Socialism. He has no answers for how any of his daydreams might work in the present.

 

[Zyphlin]

Employers want college degrees. No one cares if you think college degrees don't matter, because employers want them. And in a generation, so will Wal Mart and McDonald's... if they don't just automate.

Which sadly is kind of the point. College isn't really college anymore, it's turned into high school 2. Little Jimmy should go to college because that's what he's expected to do, regardless of what Litlte Jimmy wants to do or has the mentality and maturity to do. The reason everyone wants a college degree now is largel ybecause we've made college degree's amazingly irrelevant.

 

[waas]

Perhaps what I mean is exactly what I said, we need fewer college students. I am sorry, but when colleges are already having to teach people basic math and basic grammar because people somehow graduated without having mastered multiplication in the 8 years between 4th grade and graduation, I cannot imagine how we could dumb down the curriculum any more and somehow have a college degree lift anybody anywhere.

Perhaps you want a reformation of the college system, then?

College is part of what combats this country's class disparity, so excuse me when I say I can't take your conclusion seriously.

 

[jonny5]

An alternative idea:

As governor, cost is now the cornerstone of Scott’s higher education policy. He worries that tuition increases are putting college out of reach for working-class families like his.
“My wife and I put ourselves through college. We would not have been able to do it with tuition as high as it is today,” Scott said in a recent weekly radio address. “We must make our colleges more affordable for Florida families.”
He called on universities to halt tuition increases and vetoed a bill last year that would have allowed top-tier schools like the University of Florida and Florida State University to charge whatever they wanted in tuition.
More recently, state colleges have lined up to meet Scott’s challenge to create bachelor’s programs that cost $10,000 or less.
Universities have told Scott they are willing to hold the line on tuition, but only if the state agrees to contribute additional funding.
“I actually believe what Gov. Scott is saying about keeping tuition low is great,” said FSU President Eric Barron. “But that means then that the state has to fund the universities if we’re going to maintain the quality that the citizens in the state of Florida deserve.”

Read more here: TALLAHASSEE: Gov. Scott working on syllabus for Florida colleges: Less expensive and more practical - Florida - MiamiHerald.com

 

[waas]

How are you going to convince teachers to work for free? Textbook companies to supply free books? Companies to supply free materials for building classrooms? Energy producers to supply free electricity?

What he means by "free" is payed for by taxes. "Free" is never free when it comes to economics.

 

[nota bene]

Fisher is right, though. Colleges are having to offer extensive developmental (remedial) courses to those who were allowed entrance who can barely read or add. And when these students make it through the required developmental curriculum and are allowed to move on to courses for credit, they're still at a deficit. Their deficit can dumb down those courses for credit. Add to this the fact that the majority of students were not ever readers by choice--nor were their parents, so this is a second-generation issue now--you have a tremendous dilution in the quality of what can be taught.

Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline