Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If elected President, one of the things Senator Sanders would like to do is have government paid tuition for all public universities and colleges. I do not want to debate the idea or the costs...
The question I have is what would become of the private universities and colleges- Ivy League schools like Yale, Harvard... Religious private universities and colleges that are around the country... medical universities.... and others.
It would seem to me that their enrollments would drop appreciably. With a large drop in revenue, could they not only stay afloat but continue to provide the level of education they currently enjoy?
Is it possible it would destroy the private education industry in this country?
Would this be a good thing when trying to train people to be the best and the brightest?
Like Trump's wall, it is an impractical idea, but it is good because it gets people talking about a serious issue.
I'm a bit lazy so I didn't read your previous posts, am I to understand that your position is that higher education should be pretty much unattainable to the average?
Precisely. Frankly, not everyone is suited for academic research.
You really think the educational needs of 2016 are comparable to the educational needs of prior centuries?
There's a difference between general education and higher education. What's changed significantly is the general education needs (job training, skills training, etc). Academic higher education is not needed for the vast majority of people... and thus there's no need for them to be in college.
That being said, there's a bigger problem that no one is talking about. The fact that there's all these lower quality institutions that call themselves colleges that haven taken the place of providing job training instead of college programs. Many students from these institutions graduate without having contributed to any particular piece of published research. We've really diluted higher education.
If by financial aid you mean "loans," then yes, I would believe you can get more loans via Princeton.
I would hope that you are smart enough not to be counting loans as something that will make "tuition cheaper" at private schools.
I made that mistake when initially opening my "financial aid packages" from private schools and quickly seeing "cost of attendance" being less than the cost of yearly tuition.
A serious killjoy when read it more closely.
.
Well, you've failed to call BS on this one. Others have beat me to it but I can clarify further.
Had you done your research (something which you would have learned if you attended college), you would have learned that Princeton University has a no-loan financial aid program. They only provide grants.
I hope you are smart enough to realize that a no grant does, indeed, make tuition cheaper for the student.
You made the mistake of not actually calculated the cost of attendance using the financial aid calculators.
Who would want to attend Rutgers for undergraduate anyways? When the original Rutgers College existed, sure. But they scrapped that a little over 10 years ago.
It's a terrible idea and will only encourage colleges to raise prices and offer more degrees that are next to worthless when it comes to getting a decent job. Also, what about people that don't go to college? Why discriminate against them? Is this just once again seeing the elites in our society rewarding their children and increasing the economic divide? Why not offer zero interest loans for people to start their own business? Who knows how many next Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Henry Fords are out there and just need funding?
Horrendous and evil expression of an odious and debauched philosophy.Stealing money from one person to pay for the individual private schooling of another person is morally and ethically decrepit and disgusting.We have tolerated this nonsensical faux compassion for long enough. Compassion ends at the point of a gun.
So no, education is not an investment in anything. It is robbery unless it is voluntary. I have NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER to educate you or your kids or your grandkids. If you're going to have them, you should educate them yourself.And home schooling would be best, because the legions of mental zombies currently being released without parole from intellectual prison sentences (aka public school graduates), are largely the ones joining the putrescent Trotskyite fossil Bernie Sanders in his campaign to destroy every principle that America stands for: Individualism, Private Property Rights, Freedom, Liberty.
And all for free adult pampers, free abortions, free dentures, and oh yeah, NOT SELFISH MUCH: Eliminate my student loans. It's astonishing in its audacity and frightening in its fecklessness. But what did we expect? A strong generation of get-it-done nothing-can-stop-me adults from a curriculum of collectivist utilitarian trash where the most happiness for the most people trumps freedom and trumps achievement and trumps private property rights and trumps liberty? No, the chickens have come home to roost and they are not LIKE chickens with their heads cut off, THEY ACTUALLY ARE CHICKENS WITH THEIR HEADS CUT OFF. Insofar as their brains are operating at all, they are operating like headless chickens, voting for a useless, idle, never-done-anything, zero-achievement old fart like Bernie Sanders who openly advocates collectivist Socialism without hiding it and obfuscating it like Hillary would (in a sense, he is more honest than she is in that he is not afraid to identify what he is).
Do you want to invest in education? Save up your damned money and put yourself through school. THAT'S an INVESTMENT. Or get a scholarship if you're worth anything, or a student loan that you expect to pay back and promise to pay back. THAT's AN INVESTMENT. Or, pull a Sanders, put a gun to your neighbor's head, squeeze gently but resolutely, and demand that others INVEST IN YOU or face the consequences.
1. I disagree its an expression of an "odious and bebauched philosophy". I think providing public schools is an "enlightened expression of humanity motivated by the highest motives that men possess". Ok, now we have both offered an opinion. That's all both of these statements are: opinions. You offer no authority for your opinion. I offer none for mine. My opinion is no less valuable than yours.
2.Taxing the public to pay for the education of children is not stealing money. Taxes aren't theft. They are a mechanism for funding legitimate government needs. Public education was determined to be a legitimate government need. This was done by our representatives who were elected by a majority vote in a free election. Your views reject those of the Founding Fathers, John Locke, John Rousseau and those whose views helped created the foundations of government in America. Benjamin Franklin was one of the first advocates of taxation for things like public libraries, fire departments, and police. Nor, does public education violate the U.S. Constitution. If I call your views on taxation as being "theft" to be eccentric or unusual, I am indeed being charitable to you because other adjectives come to mind.
3. There is more involved in public education than simply compassion. Uneducated children are likely to become an expense to the public because they can do nothing valuable to earn a living. They may commit crimes and require us to incarcerate them in jail at the public expense. Judges and police officers will need to be hired by the taxpayers to deal with these uneducated children. The taxpayers will be called upon to build prisons and jails to incarcerate these dysfunctional children. Laws taxing the public to create and run public schools are founded less in compassion and more in simple practicality. It is better to train some work and earn a living than to punish them because they cannot.
4. You do have an obligation to help pay to educate all the children as long as you live in a country or state that has a law mandating public education. This is part of a social contract that you implicitly agreed too when you chose to stay in the USA after becoming an adult. You can move to some country where there aren't public schools if this makes you unhappy. As long as you are in America and avail yourself of the benefits of living in this country, you have an obligation to obey the laws.
5. You offer no proof that home schooling would be better than public schooling. Indeed, many families cannot home school because both parents have to work to pay the bills. Other families lack a parent that is capable of providing home schooling in a manner that will impart sufficient educational skills to their children. Indeed, we are training children to be more than an Amish pig farmer. Your rant about Bernie and Hillary is disjointed garbage that belongs over in the Politics forum. I can tell you are unhappy. Other than that, you make little sense.
6. You say, "If you want education you should put yourself through school". I think I will tell that to all five year old children about to enter kindergarten. Now, some have parents who would find a way to do it. However, many do not. Five year old children are brighter than people with a five year old mentality who cannot distinguish between taxes imposed by an elected government and robbery.
At this point, I give up. Its amazing the load of nonsense you've managed to stuff into your head. If you ever got the world that you think you want, you wouldn't want it. This is exactly the reason why Libertarian politicians continue to get nowhere in election after election. Only the smallest minority of people support these crackpot ideas.
Bernie's argument is that higher ed (including Votech) is now necessary education. He compares it to the 19th century public education movement. There was once a day when people argued about high school the same way we are now arguing about college.
Istead of making college part of "public education," we could fix it by doing major reform on the nation's existing public schools from grades 7-12. From my experience in the school system, we do a very good job from grades pre-K through 6. It's 7-12 we seem to do quite poorly compared to our developed world peers.
Problem is, that's probably much more expensive and difficult.
Bernie's argument is that higher ed (including Votech) is now necessary education. He compares it to the 19th century public education movement. There was once a day when people argued about high school the same way we are now arguing about college.
Istead of making college part of "public education," we could fix it by doing major reform on the nation's existing public schools from grades 7-12. From my experience in the school system, we do a very good job from grades pre-K through 6. It's 7-12 we seem to do quite poorly compared to our developed world peers.
Problem is, that's probably much more expensive and difficult.
The real problem is found among those whose thinking includes a view of education as a thing having a "high" and low aspect to it. In that view the "higher education" is reserved for the populace on the higher end of the socio/economic scale. The result has been a growing underclass of citizens being denigrated for their imagined lack of "drive," "motivation," and, to add insult to that assumption is the notion that, at a basic level, we all get what we deserve. Yes, education that focuses on specific disciplines that in turn are the stuff of employment requirements, are indeed a societal necessity. And for that reason should be encouraged by national policy.
It seems to be an obvious thing that education benefits an entire society, all learning is raising the bar on all of our expectations and that is the key to understanding the base assumption of education as a collective concern and not merely an individual pursuit for individual gain. Large corporations are a beneficiary of the better educated worker, so there is one group that should be taxed to a level that mirrors their benefit, and small business is also benefiting and should contribute on a level that is consistent with that benefit, the student, and taxpayers like myself, can pay some also, but it shouldn't be a roadblock to someone's motivation. Taking away the non essential aspects of college education, bringing the university system under tighter control with real life goals being the focus would go a long way to improving the state system of so called education.
I can remember the days when a ton of American enterprise found themselves fully engaged in training their new hires, today we see the insistence upon outside training as an employment requirement, coupled with an expensive industrialized education system that survives as a kind of profit making self serving entity. The fact that our public school system (7-12) is, at best, a prep type affair with some being actually "prepped" for success, and the rest being enlightened on the facts of life in a society that wants education as a class divider. If we expect to have a better educated work force, if we see the consequences for failing to have that, then we will, by necessity, need to open the doors to that opportunity.
As a footnote to the above: Most people can understand the need to reserve a more specific type of education curriculum as a reward for those whose demonstrated talents are in line with an assisted tuition program. An open door to college for those who can't cut the mustard is not realistic, but we do need to look a t education in terms of tools and knowledge, and stratify it accordingly.
[quote=jertheber;43503118]The real problem is found among those whose thinking includes a view of education as a thing having a "high" and low aspect to it. In that view the "higher education" is reserved for the populace on the higher end of the socio/economic scale. The result has been a growing underclass of citizens being denigrated for their imagined lack of "drive," "motivation," and, to add insult to that assumption is the notion that, at a basic level, we all get what we deserve. Yes, education that focuses on specific disciplines that in turn are the stuff of employment requirements, are indeed a societal necessity. And for that reason should be encouraged by national policy.
It seems to be an obvious thing that education benefits an entire society, all learning is raising the bar on all of our expectations and that is the key to understanding the base assumption of education as a collective concern and not merely an individual pursuit for individual gain. Large corporations are a beneficiary of the better educated worker, so there is one group that should be taxed to a level that mirrors their benefit, and small business is also benefiting and should contribute on a level that is consistent with that benefit, the student, and taxpayers like myself, can pay some also, but it shouldn't be a roadblock to someone's motivation. Taking away the non essential aspects of college education, bringing the university system under tighter control with real life goals being the focus would go a long way to improving the state system of so called education.
I can remember the days when a ton of American enterprise found themselves fully engaged in training their new hires, today we see the insistence upon outside training as an employment requirement, coupled with an expensive industrialized education system that survives as a kind of profit making self serving entity. The fact that our public school system (7-12) is, at best, a prep type affair with some being actually "prepped" for success, and the rest being enlightened on the facts of life in a society that wants education as a class divider. If we expect to have a better educated work force, if we see the consequences for failing to have that, then we will, by necessity, need to open the doors to that opportunity.
As a footnote to the above: Most people can understand the need to reserve a more specific type of education curriculum as a reward for those whose demonstrated talents are in line with an assisted tuition program. An open door to college for those who can't cut the mustard is not realistic, but we do need to look a t education in terms of tools and knowledge, and stratify it accordingly.[/QUOT]
Largely disagree. If tuition is free, the average value of the college degree would further deterioriate. The fantasy of a free tuition that leads to good jobs and fulfilling lives is just fantasy. It's a competitive world. One has to make oneself valuable to society and employers. Flooding the market with too many college degrees will not do any favor to college graduates. They still can't find a job, and they will feel even more "victimized" now that they have that "college degree," all with a yesterday's sense of its worth.
I do agree that higher education should be more affordable, but not free tuition, nor can free tuition ever be realized in this political and economic system. But much more has to change, and currently many people are resisting to even acknowledge these facts.
Many Americans have no sense of self discipline and financial literacy. Young adults must develop fiscal responsibility before they can become constructive members of society and family. Many are oblivious to the debt they have; just look at the number of adults who are pursuing dreams cluelessly, as if they have a trust fund. Free tuition would only make these people act rich even more. Hide themselves in college, get more useless degrees, all the while thinking that they now have a "college degree." People need to have a realistic sense of what they want and pursue an education that isn't dependent on public assistance and forgiveness. A sense of responsibility you know.
Meanwhile, higher ed must change. It must adapt to what it takes to compete in the global economy. The current blue model of higher ed considers itself almost as social work. Students are steered away from useful and valuable skills, in favor of ideological battles that reflect college politics than real life concerns. Campus free speech has been a disaster. Some students are acting as if they are ready to become "red guards" who took hysterical control over faculty. The nation watched in horror how inmature and incompetent our young people have become. Free tuition would only reinforce such sentiments, and ultimately disappoint young people on what that free education can/cannot get them.
As for education's role in better citizenship, the nation now watches how freshly radicalized students make unreasonable demands as if they are still children, and just how pitifully ignorant they are about the way the world works. It makes me wonder if some of these people can ever function in the employment world. And more seriously, how this generation can be cultivated to provide the critical leadership we need in a global economy.
Smart young people are everywhere, but they have something in common. They know where they are and they are determined to get where they want to go. They are realistic, frugal, constructive. They acquire valuable skills that will afford them with the means to pursue personal dreams that many of the stupid young will never get to taste. We need more of these smart young people to be America's future leaders.
Like Trump's wall, it is an impractical idea, but it is good because it gets people talking about a serious issue.
Not impractical "like Trumps wall". Trump's Wall is about as realistic as a unicorn knitting a sweater. Not gonna happen.
Public colleges were ALL free - or almost free - until recently. My grandfathers are many uncles were proud grads of The City University of New York.
That produced an accountant- CPA , two business men, an attorney and a college professor. These were the children of Eastern European immigrants. There parents barely spoke English.
I have others in my family, aunts, who became teachers and nurses through what is now the State University of NY. They paid nothing but in one case - their room and board.
Sander's plan ALREADY WORKED.
Education does benefit society at large.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
