Poll of the Day > Is free public college doable

(+) Yeah! (+)

Just my opinion but I think it's something that needs to be explored but the big question becomes how would it be paid for.

Decades ago until the early 1970s some states had free public colleges but then it all stopped.

---

Ask the Scottish.

---

i have a feeling this is US-centric since free college is already a thing that exists. in which case the answer is, of course it's doable but the US will never do it willingly

---

Free primary education for 1st-12th grade, is it possible? How would we pay for it?

---

Clench281 posted...

Free primary education for 1st-12th grade, is it possible? How would we pay for it?

Sure, if you already can live off a very limited budget. I suggest crackers with no cheese for dinner all week if you really want to commit. Books and other unforeseen fees will be eating your insides the whole term.

BUMPED2002 posted...

the big question becomes how would it be paid for.

its an investment with taxpayer money that ends up enriching the entire nation over time

I know we live in a capitalist society but weve really got to stop worshiping money above everything else

---

Subsidizing it to be a reasonable cost is fine.
Not free.
It's still a huge benefit to the individual, and also on a psychological level people tend to value things less when they're free. If they had to pay in something, they're more motivated to make it work out.

So basically...how it used to be when boomers and Gen X went to college.

Of course, esp if you go with Online/Remote Learning...

Pretty much would be the same as going to Libraries and whatnot...

Now as far as Sports and all the other 'College/University' life stuff, who knows...

Kids today have TOO many requirements in high school to graduate. They are expected to know more than they needed to 20+ years ago. Everything has become specialized and most jobs are requiring extra education to compete.

Either lower the high school requirements and allow HS kids to take some free college (which can be done now - but because of the excessive class requirements there is very little opportunity) or allow three years of free community college post high school.

Yes, tuition should be free. The textbook prices more than make up for it.

---

Yes. In some countries, you're even paid to get a higher education. If we want to pretend we're actually a meritocracy, the poor should have the same access to knowledge as the rich.

Free higher education is an investment in a country's future.

Sure, but that would depend on the degrees.

I dont think anyone benefits for paying for people to get a degree in the arts.

What the hell is with Americans and asking "is this thing that already exists possible"

---

streamofthesky posted...

So basically...how it used to be when boomers and Gen X went to college.

When Gen X and especially the Boomers went to college, it was still feasible to support a family with nothing more than a high school education (or less in the early Boomer years).

Today's job market is rather different. A post-secondary education of some kind is increasingly becoming almost mandatory if you want to make a decent living. Having privatized post-secondary now is a bit like if we suddenly made all high schools private and mandated tuition. It may have been optional education 150 years ago, but it's certainly not today and, therefore, should be something that the government will cover in the name of the prosperity of country and citizenry.

---

Hospy posted...

Sure, but that would depend on the degrees.

I dont think anyone benefits for paying for people to get a degree in the arts.

you dont think the study of artistry benefits society and culture?

---

Mead posted...

you dont think the study of artistry benefits society and culture?

Sure, but not at the cost of $200K per person.

That is the kind of studying that someone can do as self-learning or as an apprenticeship.

---

Clench281 posted...

Free primary education for 1st-12th grade, is it possible? How would we pay for it?

people pay school taxes and that has an impact on the quality of the schooling (Which Im sure you know), expanding that to college would likely have the same effect but in reality it would be somewhat redundant. College degrees today (unless its an ivy or exceptional school) is what a high school degree was in the 80s in terms of value.

the very notion of college will be even further diluted while at the same time robbing people of time entering the workforce.

idk what the future will hold or how virtual college will fit into the mix but just making a public school version of college is probably not the answer.

maybe if there is something akin to the state school system with in state and out of state tuition being the norm. Tuition is still paid by In state but at the same time its much much much cheaper.

there is also the virtual factors which we will not fully know yet.

i think that at its core our job culture has placed way too much emphasis on college degrees while at the same time cost of colleges has spun out of control.

I dont have an answer or a magic 8 ball (mine broke) but there is a lot more questions and complexity than just make it public.

fyi- its not free someone does have to pay. Whether its tuition or tax money. Then there is also the issue of open spots like there is at public schools.

granted, with college due to the lecture format of most classes its just as easy to cram 100 kids into a classroom as it is 50 cause the lecture is still the same, but with high school and middle school down you cant have a just keep packing them in without limit approach as the younger they get the more attention they need.

that is one benefit colleges have. Maybe an online option is more realistic with colleges and graduate schools than 12 and down.

idk- its just another moving part to toss in the pot.

anyone got some other thogughts?

---

Hospy posted...

Sure, but that would depend on the degrees.

I dont think anyone benefits for paying for people to get a degree in the arts.

I think that one takes care of itself. Art history or similar non art study of art can be taught (and is probably a valuable one or two semester course as part of but not the focus of a liberal arts degree).

art/music is the one area you dont need a college specific education to succeed, art/music specialty schools like guiliard you get asked to attend you dont ask to attend, if you are good enough for them to notice then its like an athlete being scouted. And while Im no expert on the art-school world my understanding is that such things are paid for by patrons of the arts on donations.

i dont know. Art programs for pay woild spring up just like private colleges. But I just think in general the system will not look like a mere continuation of existing public school where you are basically going from grades k-16 Instead of k-12.

---

Blightzkrieg posted...

What the hell is with Americans and asking "is this thing that already exists possible"

Because with the way our government is, no matter who is in charge, we never know what is possible. They really dont seem to have their shit together and theyre always fighting among themselves and dont get things done.

---

It's not something I care enough about.

I think that K-12 needs some work however.
I remember that UMass's Tuition was like 1/10th of the total cost. Like it was 1.2k per semester, but the total cost of 1 semester was 12k or something (and that commuter). That's coverable with as part time job.

Obviously university prices are higher now.

---

Mead posted...

its an investment with taxpayer money that ends up enriching the entire nation over time

Sure, if there's a bunch a doctors and engineers and what not. But the truth is college has a lot of useless degrees.
I think society would be better served by encouraging trade schools.

College is already free over here or at least some courses. Students also get a student loan that they pay back after five years I believe. Uni however isn't free at all. Should these things all be free? It's a choice to have further education so SHOULD isn't what I'd say. However if these things were free it could encourage young ones to do better and I'd believe more people would end up with better jobs and a better way of life so I voted yes.


---

In the US? No. Our enrollment rates are already higher than many nations that give it away for free. Plus we already have countless other programs which subsidize or forgive educational costs in certain fields (despite the fact that the people who go in those fields -- particularly medical -- often make tremendous money).

And that's not even getting into the issue of how standards have been dropped to abysmally low levels so everybody who wants to go to college can get through it. In the past, we expected Americans to step up. Today, we lower the bar, and that's a very strong reason why America is on an ever-spiraling decline.

streamofthesky posted...

Subsidizing it to be a reasonable cost is fine.
Not free.
It's still a huge benefit to the individual, and also on a psychological level people tend to value things less when they're free. If they had to pay in something, they're more motivated to make it work out.

So basically...how it used to be when boomers and Gen X went to college.

It already is heavily subsidized. The issue is government-backed college loans which have removed the need for colleges to control costs. If government-backed loans weren't a thing, you'd see college become much more affordable almost overnight because they'd have to find a way to be affordable.

Otherwise there are a lot of state schools with very reasonable tuition right now. Most of the debt horror stories involve people picking schools that were expensive decades ago.

IronTusk posted...

Yes. In some countries, you're even paid to get a higher education.

Which is an idiotic policy. However, it's worth noting that some of those nations that provide stipends STILL have kids incurring debt as a result of college because of other costs.

IronTusk posted...

If we want to pretend we're actually a meritocracy, the poor should have the same access to knowledge as the rich.

...first, that's not how meritocracies work. Second, because scholarships are a thing, higher-performing people born into poverty already have the same access to knowledge as the rich. Even non-higher performing people get that access, including people who make a name for themselves through activitism rather than scholastic achievement.

darkknight109 posted...

When Gen X and especially the Boomers went to college, it was still feasible to support a family with nothing more than a high school education (or less in the early Boomer years).

Today's job market is rather different. A post-secondary education of some kind is increasingly becoming almost mandatory if you want to make a decent living. Having privatized post-secondary now is a bit like if we suddenly made all high schools private and mandated tuition. It may have been optional education 150 years ago, but it's certainly not today and, therefore, should be something that the government will cover in the name of the prosperity of country and citizenry.

...which has less to do with it being needed, but because there's now a glut of degrees. Professions that have never asked for degrees, much less need them now put them in the requirements. It's to the point where employers expect baristas to have at least a bachelors.

Clench281 posted...

Free primary education for 1st-12th grade, is it possible? How would we pay for it?

Children have free accommodation, so why can't all adults live for free without working?

And not for nothing, but America's K-12 is run terribly and is an example of why we should *never* want free college. If we did, you'd just wind up with additional levels of schooling after that.

---

hungrymike posted...

Sure, if there's a bunch a doctors and engineers and what not. But the truth is college has a lot of useless degrees.
I think society would be better served by encouraging trade schools.

You don't want to live in a society that does not train and produce artists.

---

Zeus posted...

It already is heavily subsidized. The issue is government-backed college loans which have removed the need for colleges to control costs. If government-backed loans weren't a thing, you'd see college become much more affordable almost overnight because they'd have to find a way to be affordable.

Otherwise there are a lot of state schools with very reasonable tuition right now. Most of the debt horror stories involve people picking schools that were expensive decades ago.

I've heard for 2 decades now (probably been longer, just that's as far back as I remember hearing about it) that supposedly states used to subsidize in state tuition costs more, and over the years have scaled back on it to save budget / cut taxes / etc...
Though I'm not sure how true that is...
Could be a "lies, damned lies, and statistics" situation where the % of tuition covered by the state has gone down, but their contributions have stayed level when adjusted for inflation, and the former stat is only decreasing b/c college infamously has gone up in cost much faster than inflation.
In which case, it's not the states' fault. I blame that on the colleges handing out massive salaries to admin positions and the athletics dept., and on the students and parents for gladly paying for for the finest facilities and grounds and thus enable this shit.
Has anyone covered the supposed decline in state funding for tuition fairly and accurately? Now I'm curious if it's true or "true on a technicality".

Schools should increase acceptance rate to lower amount paid per student.

Zeus posted...

...which has less to do with it being needed, but because there's now a glut of degrees. Professions that have never asked for degrees, much less need them now put them in the requirements. It's to the point where employers expect baristas to have at least a bachelors.

It also has to do with a changing job market.

The job market 70 years ago looks a lot different to today's. Unions were substantially more powerful and widespread, which helped even unskilled workers earn decent wages. Manufacturing and resource extraction had yet to be automated and, as such, were the sources of plentiful jobs that required no prior education. And, of course, there were very few "mega-corps" on the scale of Wal-Mart or Amazon or Microsoft that drove up executive pay at the cost of their line workers.

Back then, as long as you had a functioning set of arms and legs, you could find good paying work. Now? North America has largely transitioned to a service industry. Most manufacturing jobs are much more technical in nature (labourers are much fewer in number; you basically need a trade ticket of some sort to make a decent wage) and if you're not providing some sort of service professionally (engineering, law, medicine, accounting, IT services, web design, marketing, etc.), you're probably supporting someone who does. Most of the jobs that involve manual labour these days (farming, restaurant work, warehouse staff, etc.) don't pay very well and can be pretty gruelling jobs as well.

We've transitioned from your muscles being your most important job asset to your brain. It's little surprise to me that employers have started requiring post-secondary qualifications as a result.

---

Seeing as colleges like making money and already get money from the government, I'm gonna say no

---

Mead posted...

you dont think the study of artistry benefits society and culture?

Not to the extent that we should be paying people to study these things. There are so many junk degrees out there that have little real world application other than teaching itself.

I have a second degree in history that quite frankly is utterly pointless. Of all my colleagues from that program, theyre either working in a field that had nothing to do with it, or theyre career students with no real job prospects other than teaching history.

Im not saying studying history is pointless, its just a field not worth investing in youth to study in. There will always be programs available for people interested in the subject.

Hospy posted...

Not to the extent that we should be paying people to study these things. There are so many junk degrees out there that have little real world application other than teaching itself.

I have a second degree in history that quite frankly is utterly pointless. Of all my colleagues from that program, theyre either working in a field that had nothing to do with it, or theyre career students with no real job prospects other than teaching history.

Im not saying studying history is pointless, its just a field not worth investing in youth to study in. There will always be programs available for people interested in the subject.

History isn't important? Tf?

---

Hospy posted...

There are so many junk degrees out there that have little real world application other than teaching itself.

Education is inherently valuable imo, it doesnt have to translate into monetary gain necessarily

---

How about we do it like the always touted as being so great Danish...you get free education and you get to server 2 years in the military for it afterwards.

Oh wait we have that...you sign up for the military and they provide you an education. Poof "free" college problem solved.

---

Muscles posted...

History isn't important? Tf?

If my kid wants to study history - he can do it on his own dime with the understanding that I'm not supporting him after he graduates. As mentioned, many degrees serve no benefit other than being able to teach the same subject.

I have no problem paying for my kid's college - but it will be for something useful or not at all.

kukukupo posted...

If my kid wants to study history - he can do it on his own dime with the understanding that I'm not supporting him after he graduates. As mentioned, many degrees serve no benefit other than being able to teach the same subject.

I have no problem paying for my kid's college - but it will be for something useful or not at all.

History is, without a doubt, one of the most important things people can learn, this isn't women's studies or some made up bs to screw idiots out of money

---

Muscles posted...

History is, without a doubt, one of the most important things people can learn, this isn't women's studies or some made up bs to screw idiots out of money

Muscles posted...

History isn't important? Tf?

A general understanding of history is important. The specialized minutiae that pursuing a degree in the topic is a niche subject that has next to no practical use in the real world. A degree in art history with a specialization on early French impressionism is going to mean, in most cases, that you just wasted four years of your life studying a subject that you may have been extremely passionate and interested about, but has little relevance to preparing you for the real world outside of college.

Mead posted...

Education is inherently valuable imo, it doesnt have to translate into monetary gain necessarily

Then it is more of pursuing a hobby than picking up applicable life skills. I don't have an issue with a degree for interpretive dance existing; I'm sure it's somebody's passion and interest, I question whether it benefits anybody for education in such a topic to be free. If it is something you're interested in then pursue it as a hobby or a side passion, find a profession that allows you to support your hobby.

Hospy posted...

Then it is more of pursuing a hobby than picking up applicable life skills.

So a person can devote their life to a pursuit or study but if it doesnt make them profit then its just a hobby?

Capitalism really has warped some peoples minds imo

---

kukukupo posted...

If my kid wants to study history - he can do it on his own dime with the understanding that I'm not supporting him after he graduates. As mentioned, many degrees serve no benefit other than being able to teach the same subject.

I have no problem paying for my kid's college - but it will be for something useful or not at all.

I hear the best parents use ultimatums to limit the options their child has

---

Mead posted...

So a person can devote their life to a pursuit or study but if it doesnt make them profit then its just a hobby?

Capitalism really has warped some peoples minds imo

If you can't live on it, then yes, it's a hobby.

I'm willing to listen if you would like to give an explanation otherwise.

Kanatteru posted...

i have a feeling this is US-centric since free college is already a thing that exists. in which case the answer is, of course it's doable but the US will never do it willingly

The people are very left-leaning, (if they aren't terrible people), even if they don't realize it, because of Fox News they think Antifa is a terrorist group and BLM is terrorizing the nation. My manager smokes weed, makes under $15 an hour, has a son in jail for drug offenses she thinks are bullshit, is accepting of gay and trans people, took Covid seriously from the beginning. So of course she loves Trump. That's almost every Republican I know in a nutshell.

It's kind of a stereotype about Americans, if your media was as corrupt and manipulative as ours you would have the same problem.

---

Zeus posted...

In the US? No.

Wow US must be poor or something. Very incapable of doing any basic government functions.

---

yes, of course it is, ok?

---

I think useful stuff with practical applications (trades, technology, etc) should be covered if the person has reasonable grades and has proven they probably won't flake. You're getting a large tax contributor down the line. Music appreciation or gender studies or other future barista avenues should receive zero subsidy.