NBC News: Exposing the College-is-for-Everyone "fantasy"

[Kron3007]

Somewhat back to the original topic.

I suspect one of the unsaid reasons that people avoid trade school is that they know a number of people who tried trade school and failed - either they didn't finish, or they finished and couldn't get a job, or they finished and got a job but couldn't earn a living at it.  There are a lot of failed plumbers and failed electricians out there.

Of course the failure rates are equally high for the college track, but, for a certain segment of the population, these failures are invisible.  People go off to college, probably graduate even if they don't learn anything, and by that time they've been gone from wherever they came from long enough that they don't come back.  So their former friends don't notice that they've failed, only that they've gone elsewhere.

From what I've seen, visible failures of would-be college students are pretty common.  Which I believe is one reason for the widespread skepticism about college.  In principle I would like to see as many people getting a college education and its benefits--and not just economic benefits--as possible.  In practice, it's pretty clear that the rush to push more students into college in recent years has done a disservice to many who simply didn't have enough interest in their educations to succeed.  I suspect that many of them would have flopped in trade school as well, due to sheer lack of work ethic, lack of support and stability at home, etc.  But I do believe that some students who've done poorly in college would likely do better in trade school.

As for those who seem unable to succeed at much of anything, I think that speaks to much deeper social issues than college can be expected to deal with.  This is why I don't support the "free college for all" plan.  I'm afraid it would just produce more expensive (to the taxpayer) failures.  I am very much in favor of taking steps to get away from the "ruinously expensive college for most" situation in which we now find ourselves.  The expense of college is stifling many students who could potentially benefit from it.  However, I do believe that students who haven't demonstrated quite remarkable potential should still have to pay something for their college.  It gives them an incentive not to blow it off.

I dont know that anyone has ever pitched free university for all.  Usually if it is free, it is capped since there is a budget.  As a result, there is competition to get in and it should become more merit based and I doubt the drop out rate would be higher.  I believe a lot of people end up dropping out due to having to work too much and not being able to strike a good work-life balance.  In reality, all of these questions have probably been addressed since there are plenty of examples from around the world (and even among states with varying tuition costs).

I think free university would be ideal, but I agree that the bigger issue is the extreme costs in some places now and if a reasonable amount of tuition is needed to provide wide enough access that may be the better choice.

[Stockmann]

Yet the American Left prefers keeping the children of the poor in this modern-day villeinage to their school district over alternatives like changing the way schools are funded or public schools with merit-based admissions, etc.

Who or what exactly are you referring to? 

This is Betsy DeVos: "The notion that spending more money is going to bring about different results is ill-placed and ill-advised."

I'm not sure what DeVos has to do with the American Left, but the American Left (the unions, for instance), when push comes to shove, opposes change in K12 in anything other than possibly the curriculum and perhaps increasing teachers' pay. Changing the funding system is just one of the changes they oppose, as evinced by the fact that deep blue states have largely stuck to the district-based, property tax-based funding system - with a few notable exceptions like Bronx HS of Science (which is opposed by the hard left), which judging by outcomes is one of the best HS in the world and can more than hold its own against elite private ones. Note that I'm not saying throwing more money at the system would be a panacea. The problems with bad school districts are very real, so it's not an it-ain't-broken,-don't-fix-it scenario. Changes like changing the funding system, or other stuff like vouchers, school choice, changing or abolishing tenure, performance-based pay, selective public schools, bypassing traditional teacher training and recruitment, etc may or may not be good ideas, but in the worst school districts there is little to lose as "up" is basically the only available direction.

[Stockmann]

Places with free/dirt cheap* college plus grants or other financial assistance tend to produce a lot of perpetual students. I guess it helps keep the unemployment stats down. Places with free/dirt cheap college but limited additional support tend to have a lot of perpetual students from the middle classes and the poor are largely still shut out of college.

*Compared to the US everywhere has dirt cheap HE, but I'm thinking of the kind of place that an ordinary summer job can be enough to pay all of a year's tuition and other fees.

These other countries also ration heavily. No efforts at retention by design. Tech school for most.

Resources are finite, so there are always constraints. Tech school for most isn't obviously worse than crushing debt burden for most.

[Kron3007]

Places with free/dirt cheap* college plus grants or other financial assistance tend to produce a lot of perpetual students. I guess it helps keep the unemployment stats down. Places with free/dirt cheap college but limited additional support tend to have a lot of perpetual students from the middle classes and the poor are largely still shut out of college.

*Compared to the US everywhere has dirt cheap HE, but I'm thinking of the kind of place that an ordinary summer job can be enough to pay all of a year's tuition and other fees.

These other countries also ration heavily. No efforts at retention by design. Tech school for most.

Resources are finite, so there are always constraints. Tech school for most isn't obviously worse than crushing debt burden for most.

Also, from a quick search, it seems that there are several countries with free university that have a similar (or higher) percentage of their population with a 4 year degree than the USA.  So, it seems that this rationing you speak of is not necessarily reducing access, likely just debt load and student stress.

[dismalist]

Oh, hell: Let's have free everything!

[Kron3007]

Oh, hell: Let's have free everything!

Sign me up!

I think we all recognize that it is not free, we are just discussing who should pay (and when). 

Perhaps I can try to speak your language.  I believe society gets a better ROI by paying for university up front (or heavily subsidizing it) to maximize future productivity and competitiveness, thereby increasing total GDP and tax revenue in the long run.  This is particularly true with a progressive tax system, where those that benefit most from the free/cheap education will end up paying more into the system.

[dismalist]

Oh, hell: Let's have free everything!

Sign me up!

I think we all recognize that it is not free, we are just discussing who should pay (and when). 

Perhaps I can try to speak your language.  I believe society gets a better ROI by paying for university up front (or heavily subsidizing it) to maximize future productivity and competitiveness, thereby increasing total GDP and tax revenue in the long run.  This is particularly true with a progressive tax system, where those that benefit most from the free/cheap education will end up paying more into the system.

Those who get the benefits must pay the costs. Otherwise there is waste -- dollar bills burnt. We can always give money to the poor.

[Kron3007]

Oh, hell: Let's have free everything!

Sign me up!

I think we all recognize that it is not free, we are just discussing who should pay (and when). 

Perhaps I can try to speak your language.  I believe society gets a better ROI by paying for university up front (or heavily subsidizing it) to maximize future productivity and competitiveness, thereby increasing total GDP and tax revenue in the long run.  This is particularly true with a progressive tax system, where those that benefit most from the free/cheap education will end up paying more into the system.

Those who get the benefits must pay the costs. Otherwise there is waste -- dollar bills burnt. We can always give money to the poor.

You are wrong.

[dismalist]

Oh, hell: Let's have free everything!

Sign me up!

I think we all recognize that it is not free, we are just discussing who should pay (and when). 

Perhaps I can try to speak your language.  I believe society gets a better ROI by paying for university up front (or heavily subsidizing it) to maximize future productivity and competitiveness, thereby increasing total GDP and tax revenue in the long run.  This is particularly true with a progressive tax system, where those that benefit most from the free/cheap education will end up paying more into the system.

Those who get the benefits must pay the costs. Otherwise there is waste -- dollar bills burnt. We can always give money to the poor.

You are wrong.

That's a powerful, convincing, argument.

[marshwiggle]

Oh, hell: Let's have free everything!

Sign me up!

I think we all recognize that it is not free, we are just discussing who should pay (and when). 

Perhaps I can try to speak your language.  I believe society gets a better ROI by paying for university up front (or heavily subsidizing it) to maximize future productivity and competitiveness, thereby increasing total GDP and tax revenue in the long run.  This is particularly true with a progressive tax system, where those that benefit most from the free/cheap education will end up paying more into the system.

This is the basis of my question about what universities offer; the idea that anything they might offer would automatically be a benefit to GDP in the long run is ridiculously optimistic at best, delusional at worst, since it would justify offering absolutely anything.

[dismalist]

Oh, hell: Let's have free everything!

Sign me up!

I think we all recognize that it is not free, we are just discussing who should pay (and when). 

Perhaps I can try to speak your language.  I believe society gets a better ROI by paying for university up front (or heavily subsidizing it) to maximize future productivity and competitiveness, thereby increasing total GDP and tax revenue in the long run.  This is particularly true with a progressive tax system, where those that benefit most from the free/cheap education will end up paying more into the system.

This is the basis of my question about what universities offer; the idea that anything they might offer would automatically be a benefit to GDP in the long run is ridiculously optimistic at best, delusional at worst, since it would justify offering absolutely anything.

The future productivity must be paid for by the beneficiaries, otherwise there'll be goofing off.

The economy is us.

[Parasaurolophus]

This is the basis of my question about what universities offer; the idea that anything they might offer would automatically be a benefit to GDP in the long run is ridiculously optimistic at best, delusional at worst, since it would justify offering absolutely anything.

Surely trying to predict which sorts of training will have beneficial--or, optimally beneficial--effects on the GDP years or decades downstream is hopeless (not least since everyone ultimately contributes to economic activity) and undesirably inefficient and inflexible (in much the same way as centralized command-economies are).

[dismalist]

This is the basis of my question about what universities offer; the idea that anything they might offer would automatically be a benefit to GDP in the long run is ridiculously optimistic at best, delusional at worst, since it would justify offering absolutely anything.

Surely trying to predict which sorts of training will have beneficial--or, optimally beneficial--effects on the GDP years or decades downstream is hopeless (not least since everyone ultimately contributes to economic activity) and undesirably inefficient and inflexible (in much the same way as centralized comman-economies are).

Nay, it's decentralized planning. Individuals and individual institutions can and must plan, and bear risks. See what works. But this works iff the beneficiaries pay the costs. 

And the risks are insured by the welfare state.

No worries.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

Those who get the benefits must pay the costs. Otherwise there is waste -- dollar bills burnt. We can always give money to the poor.

There are tremendous benefits for contributing to someone else's education:
maintaining [appearance of] social elevators facilitates social cohesion allowing one to save on kidnap&ransom insurance and round the clock armed guards. Giving money directly to the poor may be more expensive and politically unsustainable way of doing so.

[dismalist]

Those who get the benefits must pay the costs. Otherwise there is waste -- dollar bills burnt. We can always give money to the poor.

There are tremendous benefits for contributing to someone else's education:
maintaining [appearance of] social elevators facilitates social cohesion allowing one to save on kidnap&ransom insurance and round the clock armed guards. Giving money directly to the poor may be more expensive and politically unsustainable way of doing so.

If true, they accrue to the beneficiary. Let them pay.

Dollar for dollar, I'd much rather give to the poor. I know that few others wish to.