Can we talk about the idea of free college?

[cmarango]

I'm not sure if this is considered political or not.  I simply want to know what people think about the idea of free college.  I just read an article from NPR about it, and haven't really given much thought about it until now.

 

The first questions that pop into my mind are:

 

1.  Will the number of people obtaining college degrees substantially increase?

2.  Will it become more difficult to find a job without a college degree?

3.  Will the quality of education received change?

4.  How will we fund colleges...based on enrollment numbers? test scores (like public schools)?

 

[Carrie12345]

I dislike using the word "free", but I'm all for what it really is.

 

I think numbers will increase, though not necessarily substantially.

I don't think it can get much more difficult to find a job without a degree.

The quality could potentially change, I suppose.  But I feel they (public colleges, especially community colleges) have already been changing to cope with declining high school skills.

I haven't even gotten to the point of wondering how funding from school to school might be handled.  

[gardenmom5]

There's no such thing as free tuition. SOMEONE is paying for it.

Even my dd's school based tuition grants - someone gave the money to the college with which the education was paid.

[DawnM]

I'm not sure if this is considered political or not.  I simply want to know what people think about the idea of free college.  I just read an article from NPR about it, and haven't really given much thought about it until now.

 

The first questions that pop into my mind are:

 

1.  Will the number of people obtaining college degrees substantially increase?

2.  Will it become more difficult to find a job without a college degree?

3.  Will the quality of education received change?

4.  How will we fund colleges...based on enrollment numbers? test scores (like public schools)?

 

 

1.  The numbers entering, or trying to enter, will most likely increase.  The number of students who do not graduate is high.  My guess is that the percentage of those who don't finish won't change.

 

If they offer free education, they should make it dependent on graduation.  (my person opinion.)

 

2.  No idea

 

3.  I think there will still be entrance requirements for particular schools.

 

4.  Funding comes from government, no matter if it is based on numbers or test scores.   

[Ravin]

I think it might make military recruitment more difficult.

[Crimson Wife]

I strongly believe that our society should have a generous loan forgiveness program for students who meet the following qualifications:

 

-prepared for college-level work upon matriculation

-graduate with an ok college GPA (maybe 2.7)

-pass a competency exam for the chosen major to guard against "grade inflation" by unscrupulous colleges

 

I would have the percent loans forgiven on a sliding scale based on family income adjusted for regional differences in COL. I would also offer higher loan forgiveness percentages for students who commit to public service careers like teaching, social work, etc.

[Guest]

I'd rather see federal loans abolished entirely than loan forgiveness, which does nothing to address the ridiculous inflation of costs of education and the waste in that system. A girl can dream, and in the meantime I just keep cutting the checks. Ugh.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[Laurie4b]

I'm not sure if this is considered political or not.  I simply want to know what people think about the idea of free college.  I just read an article from NPR about it, and haven't really given much thought about it until now.

 

The first questions that pop into my mind are:

 

1.  Will the number of people obtaining college degrees substantially increase?  I wouldn't think it would change substantially but it would ensure 1) that individuals aren't held back from college because of finances and 2) students wouldn't emerge with crippling debt. 

2.  Will it become more difficult to find a job without a college degree? Since I don't think it would change the number of students substantially, I don't think this will be significant either. 

3.  Will the quality of education received change? Possibly for the better. I don't think it will get worse. 

4.  How will we fund colleges...based on enrollment numbers? test scores (like public schools)?  

 

Germany already has free college for everyone who qualifies. Even for foreign students, the tuition is very tiny. (About $750 /yr for my son to get a master's degree in psych. Of course, one must be fluent in German.) 

[Lady Florida.]

I'm not sure if this is considered political or not.  I simply want to know what people think about the idea of free college.  I just read an article from NPR about it, and haven't really given much thought about it until now.

 

 

I read that this morning and am not sure what to think. It was interesting to learn that the countries that offer free tuition don't have the highest number of college graduates. From the article, after they listed some statistics:

 

So "the most educated workforces in the world" today don't have free college. And countries that do have free public universities don't necessarily have more educated workforces than we do.

 

No, it's not free and yes, someone (aka taxpayers) has to pay for it. I don't mind paying taxes for people to go to college any more than I mind paying taxes for K-12, but only if it will have an overall positive effect.

 

Full disclosure: I'm a very left leaning liberal and will vote for the candidate nominated by that party. That doesn't mean I'm on board with everything. This free college thing is something I'm unsure will work the way he says it will, and the way people would like it to. Many of my IRL friends are jumping for joy over this idea. While I'm not opposed to the idea, I'm not convinced it will work or is even the best option.

 

I'd be more apt to think controlling the cost of college education is where we should start, but I confess I haven't looked closely enough at either (free or capped cost) to be able to add anything useful to the discussion. I've been reading a lot on it, and will watch this thread too. I hope it can stay not political because with the politics out of it, it really is a thoughtful conversation to have on an education forum.

 

BTW, if anyone joining this thread hasn't read the linked article I highly recommend doing so. It's not partisan. It covers the pros and cons of free college tuition, looks at other countries with and without free college, and gives one a lot to think about.

Edited February 18, 2016 by Lady Florida

[marbel]

I think it might make military recruitment more difficult.

 

Interesting.  I know several people in the military and all are pointing their kids away from it, saying that the services as a whole are downsizing, opportunities are not as plentiful as they had been in the past, and pay and benefits are not so great anymore.    

 

(Not to derail.  I haven't read the article yet but am skeptical.  I also really dislike the use of the word "free;" it's more honest to say "taxpayer-funded.")

[Frances]

I read that this morning and am not sure what to think. It was interesting to learn that the countries that offer free tuition don't have the highest number of college graduates. From the article, after they listed some statistics:

 

So "the most educated workforces in the world" today don't have free college. And countries that do have free public universities don't necessarily have more educated workforces than we do.

 

No, it's not free and yes, someone (aka taxpayers) has to pay for it. I don't mind paying taxes for people to go to college any more than I mind paying taxes for K-12, but only if it will have an overall positive effect.

 

Full disclosure: I'm a very left leaning liberal and will vote for the candidate nominated by that party. That doesn't mean I'm on board with everything. This free college thing is something I'm unsure will work the way he says it will, and the way people would like it to. Many of my IRL friends are jumping for joy over this idea. While I'm not opposed to the idea, I'm not convinced it will work or is even the best option.

 

I'd be more apt to think controlling the cost of college education is where we should start, but I confess I haven't looked closely enough at either (free or capped cost) to be able to add anything useful to the discussion. I've been reading a lot on it, and will watch this thread too. I hope it can stay not political because with the politics out of it, it really is a thoughtful conversation to have on an education forum.

 

BTW, if anyone joining this thread hasn't read the linked article I highly recommend doing so. It's not partisan. It covers the pros and cons of free college tuition, looks at other countries with and without free college, and gives one a lot to think about.

I would say I'm in a very similar place. My state just started a program for free community college and I'm curious to see how it will work out. Students have to apply for financial aid, so some of the costs will be covered by the federal government through Pell Grants.

 

I'm a bit more hesitant about free four year universities, as I think countries that do it or very cheap fees also academically track students in earlier grades and do not provide the kind of academic and first generation support many universities in the US do. Educationally, we are more the land of infinite second chances. So I'm not sure it is financially feasible to have people at all different levels of preparation attempting university for free.

 

Community colleges also seem a better place to start because I would think it is more likely a student would have one near their home, thus saving on living expenses, as I believe most states have more of them.

 

And I also agree we need to look at what is driving the increased costs. The number of administrative positions certainly seems to be increasing, as do the extravagant facilities. Also, do the countries with free or very cheap tuition have all of the sports teams and other extracurrucular activities that US universities do?

[Ravin]

I'd rather see federal loans abolished entirely than loan forgiveness, which does nothing to address the ridiculous inflation of costs of education and the waste in that system. A girl can dream, and in the meantime I just keep cutting the checks. Ugh.

I agree. And I'm out of likes.

[Ravin]

Interesting. I know several people in the military and all are pointing their kids away from it, saying that the services as a whole are downsizing, opportunities are not as plentiful as they had been in the past, and pay and benefits are not so great anymore.

 

(Not to derail. I haven't read the article yet but am skeptical. I also really dislike the use of the word "free;" it's more honest to say "taxpayer-funded.")

I do think such changes will make the GI Bill less of a draw. The military will have to shift to focusing on improving quality of life IN the service to draw in new recruits. Better pay, bonuses, and the recent proposals to revamp the way maternity and paternity leave are done should help improve retention and lessen the need to bring in as many recruits. It may well become a lot more common to join up after get in an associate's degree first.

[SKL]

I think it will not change the fact that a competitive education is going to be expensive.

 

Where I live, I doubt it will make a significant difference in access, because we already have realistic options for people of all income levels to go to college if they are "college material."  This might not be true all over the USA though.

 

I would worry that tracking in middle / high school would get more serious in order to control the demand for seats at the "free" universities.

[HS Mom in NC]

I think one thing often left out of the discussion is propping up a broken system with tax dollars.  People would be outraged if a doctor transfused blood to a hemorrhaging patient without making all attempts possible to stop the hemorrhaging.  Precious finite supplies of blood would be gone through at very high rates.  I think government funded ANYthing should ONLY be considered when a realistic, specific,plan to assess and end wastefulness and put in a workable system to continue monitoring for wastefulness has been planned and there's some authority to enforce it.  

I don't think tax dollars should be invested in degrees with no real hope of return on that investment in the form of employability.  I don't think General Ed classes should be required for college degrees-only classes that are essential to the degree itself.  General Ed classes should be the content of high school.  Admittance exams should test to make sure a student can handle those classes academically. If they want fluff or personal interest kind of classes, then fine-they can pay the actual cost of it out of  their own pockets.  Taxpayer dollars are investments, not gifts.  All professors getting a taxfunded paycheck should be working full time in the classroom. There's no academic value that leads to employment in college sports. Taxpayers shouldn't be funding it.  You want college sports?  Then sell whatever you have to sell (tickets, paraphernalia) to fund it. The textbook nonsense has to stop too.  There is no reason for the ridiculous cost of textbooks or the need for new ones as frequently as it's happening now. 

I also think ps and public charter schools K-12 should only fund PE and academics that prepare students for college, highly skilled labor and the military.  Kids can do drama, soccer and cheerleading after school if they want, but not an the taxpayer's dime.  Those are before or after school classes that need other funding.  If between fundraising and donations there isn't enough money to do it, cut it. Put that money into teacher pay and maintaining buildings.

Some sort of independent auditing needs to happen on a regular basis in all those scenarios.  Money should go to teachers and classrooms first and then other places.  Taxpayers will be more willing to consider government funded schooling if they know those dollars are being well invested and not squandered on stupid things.  Until that happens, many people aren't even going to consider the idea.  If you want to play to win, you have to hear the opposition and address their very real concerns.  If you dismiss it as "mean" or "selfish" or whatever, you'll never make progress.  

 

[mamakelly]

We live in California. If you are considered lower-middle income, you qualify for a Board of Governors waiver that covers your tuition at community college. I think I only had to pay a $20 health fee. If you are lower income you also get a Pell Grant, which covered the cost of my books.

 

My son is a Sophmore at SDSU, he has a Cal Grant that covers all but about $300-500 per semester of his tuition. He has had to take out a student loan for books, parking pass etc.. , but it's maybe only at $2,000. Cal Grants are open to any resident citizen high school student who graduates from high school in California, with a 3.0 GPA  whose parents income falls within the guidelines. Our family of 6 can make up to $104,000 per year and he will still qualify. If you make signifigantly less, there is another Cal Grant that the student will qualify for, that pays for books etc...The grant transfers to California private schools as well, it's even a little more money for private schools. 

 

My point is, some states already have options for greatly reduced college fees, and "free" college.

[Reefgazer]

I think in order to have an honest discussion about the topic, we need to admit that a college education will not be "free" and that *someone* will be paying for it, and that someone ought to be identified upfront and notified how much in increased taxes he will be on the hook for.

 

Anyway, I am generally against the idea of "free" college.  The way colleges are run and administered, free college will lead to grade 13-16 and become an extension of high school.  Our publically-funded grade K-12 are barely functional now, so I don't see how this is going to change simply because we call it college.  There will be pressure on faculty toward grade inflation, which will result in a dumbing down of classes in order that GPA standards be met.  A standardized test will not solve this problem (Exhibit A:  NCLB), either.  Unprepared students will be wasting taxpayer dollars as they sit in class learning nothing and collecting their grade-inflated and dumbed down degree.  Some type of loan forgiveness (like Crimson Wife suggested, above) might be a great idea for those who are truly academically prepared.  But measuring true academic preparedness does not have a stellar record in this country, so I am not sure how to go about doing that accurately.  Mostly, I think the federal government should step out of the way and leave the administration of colleges to the states.

[LucyStoner]

I support:

 

1) Truly affordable college with generous grants or very low interest loans to qualified students, especially those who will be working in public service in some capacity post graduation. I think public schools need to stay reasonably priced- taxpayers funded them and they should be able to send their children for less than and arm and a leg. Public schools need to STAY PUBLIC.

 

2) Replacing some training and professional learning with apprenticeships or internships that reduces the amount of years in college.

 

3) Demanding quality from schools which recieve public money, be that state funding to the insitution or demand side payments schools collect in grants and loans for students. I think that some low quality schools probably need to close.

 

4) losing the cultural attitude that the only way to get ahead is college. There are so many jobs these days which one could do without a degree but which require a costly 4 year degree.

 

5) perhaps tying some college subsidies to public service before college, as in military or Americorps or other volunteer national service.

 

6) While I fully support research instutions and the value they add to student opportunity and public knowledge and I support liberal arts education in majors some see as frivolous, I think public schools have opened themselves up to significant criticism with huge capital projects like new dorms which are nicer than the first apartment we lived in as a married couple. Preserve research and all academic disciplines but cut the frou frou frills meant to "attract students". It's too expensive for a lot of students to live on campus because the new dorms and cafeterias are all being paid for by higher tuition and room and board costs. It's college. The dorms can be plain, small and barely adequate All of the new posh dorms I have seen replaced dorms that were perfectly serviceable with a few retrofits.

 

7) the system of abusing adjunct professors needs to stop. If someone is teaching FT they should be a FT professor and not classified as a PT contractor to avoid paying a full salary and benefits. Paying professors all but nothing drives them out of the field so students are constantly learning from inexperienced people and, because these folks often need other jobs, it's harder for the students to engage with their professor after or between classes.

 

I think throwing around the term "free college" or full loan forgiveness for all graduates retroactively makes people sound a bit unrealistic. To put it very mildly.

Edited February 18, 2016 by LucyStoner

[LucyStoner]

2. Will it become more difficult to find a job without a college degree?

 

I think it has already become more difficult to find a job without a degree. I also think we are seeing some 4 year undergraduate degrees go the way high school diplomas did in terms of respect and employment prospects. More and more jobs are requiring not just an undergraduate degree but a graduate degree.

[idnib]

I have mixed feelings about it.

 

I believe in access to higher education and in an ideal world, someone would not be unable to attend college simply due to their parents' income. I feel genuine grief when I think about wasted talent somewhere, not being put to good use in the world. A full scholarship for my dad changed the entire course of my family's trajectory and I am forever grateful. Just so you know where I'm coming from...

 

But, I think having free college doesn't address the some of the reasons college has become so necessary, whether it's the decline in quality of K-12 so a student needs a higher degree to prove competence, the exporting of manufacturing jobs, the increasing population relative to a more stable number of non-profit universities, etc.

 

I would love it if we could have free university, and rigorous high school education, and good jobs for those who choose not to attend.

 

But I am unwilling to sacrifice a generation or two for the greater good of getting these problems fixed. If we have gutted blue collar jobs and closed factories, off-shored work, made certain trade agreements, and cheapened the value of a high school diploma, that is not the young people's fault. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by idnib

[Katy]

nm

Edited July 22, 2016 by Katy

[creekland]

I have mixed feelings about it. 

 

I have mixed feelings too.  From my high school alone I can point to students where free college would really benefit them and our world and I can point to students where it would be a waste of taxpayer money and everyone's time (at least, at this point in the student's life).

 

Abuses would run rampant.

 

But if one were to say students needed to get an approval from a committee of teachers, etc, at their school that leads to problems too (not to mention homeschoolers and late bloomers post high school years).  Corruption could be common.  As could a version of road rage in some cases.

 

I'm not sure what the solution is, but in the meantime, we still contribute to scholarships and funds for need based aid to try to help college become affordable for some who qualify.

 

And we're still paying for two of our own guys to attend.

[DawnM]

My responses are in red:

 

 

I don't think tax dollars should be invested in degrees with no real hope of return on that investment in the form of employability. 

 

So, what would make a degree "employable?"  My degree REQUIRED an MA after college in order to be hirable, but I still needed the BA to get to the MA program.  I think one could argue that any degree can make someone employable.

 

I don't think General Ed classes should be required for college degrees-only classes that are essential to the degree itself.  General Ed classes should be the content of high school.  Admittance exams should test to make sure a student can handle those classes academically. If they want fluff or personal interest kind of classes, then fine-they can pay the actual cost of it out of  their own pockets.  Taxpayer dollars are investments, not gifts.  All professors getting a taxfunded paycheck should be working full time in the classroom. There's no academic value that leads to employment in college sports. Taxpayers shouldn't be funding it.  You want college sports?  Then sell whatever you have to sell (tickets, paraphernalia) to fund it. The textbook nonsense has to stop too.  There is no reason for the ridiculous cost of textbooks or the need for new ones as frequently as it's happening now. 

 

The bolded is an interesting idea.  So, would college be shorter or would there be more classes in the intended field of study offered?

I also think ps and public charter schools K-12 should only fund PE and academics that prepare students for college, highly skilled labor and the military.  Kids can do drama, soccer and cheerleading after school if they want, but not an the taxpayer's dime.  Those are before or after school classes that need other funding.  If between fundraising and donations there isn't enough money to do it, cut it. Put that money into teacher pay and maintaining buildings.

 

Well, the bolded I 100% disagree with but this may not be the place to argue about it.   Although in CA and here, soccer and cheerleading ARE after school, so that isn't an argument, but I would argue that art, wood shop, theater classes, music classes, and such are very much a part of an overall liberal arts education and students often find their passion during these classes.  

Some sort of independent auditing needs to happen on a regular basis in all those scenarios.  Money should go to teachers and classrooms first and then other places.  Taxpayers will be more willing to consider government funded schooling if they know those dollars are being well invested and not squandered on stupid things.  Until that happens, many people aren't even going to consider the idea.  If you want to play to win, you have to hear the opposition and address their very real concerns.  If you dismiss it as "mean" or "selfish" or whatever, you'll never make progress.  

 

One of the things that concerns me about "free" education is the government regulations that go along with it.  Already several states have "free" community college for students who meet certain criteria.  There are hoops to jump through and regulations to follow, which I don't necessarily disagree with, but some of the criteria is over the top.

 

Here, CC is free only if you are still a high school student, and even then, you do pay fees and books, which was $350 for my son taking 3 classes this semester.  Still cheap, but does have some cost involved.

 

 

[Carrie12345]

 

4) losing the cultural attitude that the only way to get ahead is college. There are so many jobs these days which one could do without a degree but which require a costly 4 year degree.

 

 

I agree with this, and it makes me wonder more about the "less educated" countries in the chart.  Is their job market like ours, or is it much different?

 

I absolutely do not think college is for everyone, nor should college be needed for every job.  

 

I don't want to break the political rules, so I'll just say that *of course* there are many other factors/problems that need to be addressed to make real change, but I do believe this is one of them and it's a decent start.  I'd even settle for 2 year colleges, though I'll happily stand behind 4-yrs.

 

And, while the article argues that there probably wouldn't be a giant increase in degrees, it does state it would probably pay for itself in the long run.  "Probably" may not get a lot of people excited, but I find it worthy of serious consideration.

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

The price of college in the US is a big problem, but I think there are bigger problems that could be addressed first.  

 

I would like to see technical schools, skill-set diplomas, and skilled labor certifications come back to being viable, non-stigmatized options for teens and young adults.  And these should be low-priced options that meet real market needs.  I'd like to see more money going to option C: the more-than-highschool-yet-not-a-bachelo'rs-degree option, and it would be great if people would recognize these absolutely essential skill sets as worthy things for themselves and their children to strive for.  

 

This could free up a lot of space in universities for truly academically-minded students, and without the insane demand, perhaps colleges would find they can't keep jacking up prices.  

 

 

ETA- I posted before reading other comments, I see others have already touched on this concept!  

Edited February 18, 2016 by Monica_in_Switzerland

[MotherGoose]

I dislike the term "free college" because it would encourage the prospective students to forget that it isn't free. Someone's tax dollars, which they might have wanted to spend on something else, given the choice, are being used to pay for your college. I have a high school friend who didn't have the grades or the smarts, to be honest, to go to public university. So she believed the lie that life would be great and she'd have plenty of money if she went to college, and went to a private school, taking out untold thousands of dollars in loans in the process. She couldn't pass the teacher exam, so she got a social work degree, and is now struggling, has defaulted on her loans, etc. she should have gone to a tech program--she just wasn't able to do college---although she did at least graduate. This was from a school known to work with kids who couldn't make it academically in a university. If she'd had free college, sure she wouldn't have debt now, but this is someone who really wasn't able to do a four year college. She would have been fine with a tech degree. If they do any sort of free college , they need to make sure only people who are academically ready go to four year universities and colleges enroll. And if you party and get kicked out in the process and don't graduate, you need to pay back the taxpayers for the money you squandered.

[regentrude]

I come from a country where college is free - to students. Of course nothing is ever free, so the money comes from higher taxes.

Students must pass a rigorous high school exit exam in order to be eligible to attend university. And they are not allowed to fail as often as they want; if they fail the same course three times, they have to leave the university.

 

If a society decides to make college free for students, it behoves to have measures in place that ensure that the students using this opportunity are equipped for success. For this reason, I do not think that the number of college degrees would increase, because I cannot fathom a system where there is no quality control that ensures this money is spent on capable students - in the form of entrance exams or weedout courses or strict regulations.

 

It is already difficult to find jobs without college degrees; I do not forsee a change.

 

The quality of education has nothing to do with who offers the funding. It is, OTOH, strongly coupled to the ability of a university to select which students to admit. (In my home country where universities are required to accept everybody who passed the college prep high school exit exam, with few exceptions, there is no such differentiation and thus no system of different quality schools has developed, as we have it in the US.)

 

If  a society decides to fund college through taxes, it should also fund other kinds of post secondary education for students who are more apt for a trade. In Germany, not just colleges are free, but also vocational schools.

 

ETA: The comparison of educated workforce in the linked article is problematic since it translates the definition of "college" to other systems that may not have a direct equivalent. In Germany, many fields that would be taught at a "college" in the US would be accomplished via vocational schools; German colleges should better be likened to American 4 year universities. So, any statistics that used German numbers for "college degrees" needs to specify what that is supposed to mean. There are fewer university degrees per capita in Germany than "college" degrees in the US, but a lot of people receive a college equivalent education at an institution that bears a different name. (The article briefly mentions that the German system is more complex).

 

 

Edited February 18, 2016 by regentrude

[amy g.]

I'll start out by saying that my $15,000 in student loans were forgiven because I taught in very low income schools for 5 years, so thank you taxpayers! I think that loan forgiveness should be tied to public service.

 

When I was in public school, we were bussed across the city so that each school could be more racially and economically intergrated. I have no problem with that. There was a problem with tracking, though. The students were broken into 3 groups, regular, major works and vanguard. You only had classes with, or interacted with people in your group. Guess which group had the best teachers and smallest class sizes. There were 3 little schools within each school and these were very segregated.

 

So with "free college" I worry about it becoming like the star-bellied sneeches. Degrees from public colleges might no longer open doors. We are looking for graduates only from exclusive universities that don't participate in this government program. If people have an investment in keeping society divided into us and them, they are not going to give that up easily and say, "Wow, you have a college degree. You must be one of us now."

 

I agree with the previous posters who say that the changes need to start with the high schools. Here, the graduates from our upper middle class suburban high school are woefully unprepared for college, even the ones with extremely high grades. I could tell story after story. Something has to change there or college will just become even more watered down babysitting.

[flyingiguana]

I keep hearing the argument that students will appreciate it more and work harder if they have to pay for it.  I just don't get this.

 

My college was essentially free for me, as well as everyone else who went to a public university/college in my state back then.  To be honest, I don't really see any difference in the work ethic of students these days who are paying umpteen dollars for essentially the same education.

 

For some students, maybe it still seems free, because they're living off loans.  For others, though, holding down more jobs and worrying about their loans has just increased their stress levels.

 

The one thing I do see is that students aren't as well prepared after going through high school.  But this seems to be ALL students.  It's not just a subset of kids who never would have gone to college before.  It's as if a lot of high schools are saying, whatever -- the kids are going to college.  They can learn whatever they need then. 

 

If college were to be made free, I would also be interested in figuring out some way to make high school education worth something and not just seen as a holding pen for kids who aren't old enough for college.

 

[fairfarmhand]

Here in TN we have a "taxpayer funded community college" program that just started last fall.

 

This is funding that only is for students who have no other option. IOW, if you have merit aid or Pell grants or whatever, this funding will stop up the gaps but after your education is funded it won't put money in your bank account. It's a good option for average students whose parents make too much money for low income assistance but not enough to pay for college outright.

 

They only pay for basic community college. If you go for a 2yr degree at a more expensive 4 yr school, they only pay the basic community college rate and you have to make up the gap.

 

It also (one thing I LOVE about this program) pays for some vocational training too. Like if you want to be an EMT, they'll pay for that or some other training that takes 2 yrs. I like that, Kids can get out of their 2 yrs with marketable skills, and many of them just want to be prepared for the work force, not necessarily want to go the whole 4 yr degree.

 

They require community service, they walk kids through all the process of application, FASFA, etc. They have mentors that are paired with every studen.

 

Problems that are already poppinng up: The rate of retention in the program isn't great yet. I've heard that after the first midterm, lots of kids drop out because they just aren't prepared, emotionally, academically, and mentally for the workload and commitment that college level work requires. So, a ll that money wasted.

 

My dd probably won't use this program, Her merit aid will likely pay for all her stuff so there will be no need. Also, she needs a 4 y r degree for her career path.

[creekland]

I would argue that art, wood shop, theater classes, music classes, and such are very much a part of an overall liberal arts education and students often find their passion during these classes. :

 

:iagree:  I'd hate to see these become available just for the wealthy in our society - those who could pay for lessons or sports or whatever.  Many, many kids benefit from their exposure to so much more than academics.  We've even had students get good scholarships to college from cheerleading.  I'm sure it helps that our school finished 1st in the nation in their division last year (4th this year, 2nd two years earlier), so we have a known great program, but still, it's hardly a worthless endeavor. 

 

Actual life is far more than just the academics involved.  I like that our K-12 schools try to do a good job at preparing students for many different aspects of life.  I don't want to see that change.  There are modifications I would make (eg, allowing students to head for trades earlier if that's their choice), but eliminating the arts, etc, is not one of them.  Kids do not always get exposure at home.  Many families can't afford it.  Others wouldn't choose it.  

 

I like our 4 year college system too with different levels of colleges for different students and a variety of classes offered (and sometimes required).  I think an educated person should be educated in more than just their major.  Some would get that on their own.  Many would not.

 

But I agree that it's too costly for many, so it would be helpful to come up with solutions for lowering the cost.  A more educated society without as much debt benefits us all.  (Trade educations are just fine IMO.  I'm not dissing those.  I think those also should have lower costs involved for students heading that path.)

[Hyacinth]

Didn't we have this conversation here recently re: "free tuition" at Massachusetts colleges? From what I recall, the original tuition costs just folded into fees.

 

Nothing is free. And, as others have pointed out, there are too many issues in our K-12 system to believe that taxpayer-funded college is a great idea.

[linders]

I'm not sure if this is considered political or not.  I simply want to know what people think about the idea of free college.  I just read an article from NPR about it, and haven't really given much thought about it until now.

 

The first questions that pop into my mind are:

 

1.  Will the number of people obtaining college degrees substantially increase? I think yes, but I'm afraid that there will be a disproportionate increase in people starting college who aren't prepared for it either academically or in maturity and as a result drop out, so I'm not sure we will see a large increase in college graduates. 

2.  Will it become more difficult to find a job without a college degree? Perhaps. The attitude may become, "If you wanted to, you could have gone to college - it's free. So were you just too lazy/unmotivated/unintelligent?" Note that I do not think all people should necessarily go to college. "Book learning" is only one pathway to developing one's mind and abilities. In particular, people who thrive on hands-on work can be utterly unmotivated by college.

3.  Will the quality of education received change? If colleges vigilantly maintain requirements to enter and remain enrolled, it shouldn't.  

4.  How will we fund colleges...based on enrollment numbers? test scores (like public schools)? Not sure.

 

The concept of free college is one we ponder a lot at home. Both DH and I had to pay all (me) or part (him) of our college. As they have gotten older, we require our DC to pay part of special extracurriculars. I truly think we value things we have worked for more than things that are just handed to us, and we think twice about whether what we want to spend money on is worthwhile.

 

So, free college. If that means no effort to work as a teen, no working during college (in session or out), no service to others afterwards...I am not in favor. If it involves opportunities to "earn" part of the cost, through some combination of guaranteed work-study, summer employment (paid or volunteer), service in disadvantaged areas for some period of time after graduation, I like it. The model I look at is the military's program for medical school - we have two friends who went to medical school paid for by the Army, with the requirement to serve as Army doctors for the same number of years after they became MDs. Both highly recommend it, and both have ultimately stayed in the Army for long after they satisfied their commitment.

 

[Katy]

One option to make college more affordable would be to limit costs for all schools that receive federal financial aid.  Like, put a cap on charges so if a given university wants to pay high salaries to administrators, or build multimillion dollar gyms with climbing walls and lazy river pools, they could raise the money for that themselves.

[Ravin]

I think one thing often left out of the discussion is propping up a broken system with tax dollars.  People would be outraged if a doctor transfused blood to a hemorrhaging patient without making all attempts possible to stop the hemorrhaging.  Precious finite supplies of blood would be gone through at very high rates.  I think government funded ANYthing should ONLY be considered when a realistic, specific,plan to assess and end wastefulness and put in a workable system to continue monitoring for wastefulness has been planned and there's some authority to enforce it.  

 

I don't think tax dollars should be invested in degrees with no real hope of return on that investment in the form of employability.  I don't think General Ed classes should be required for college degrees-only classes that are essential to the degree itself.  General Ed classes should be the content of high school.  Admittance exams should test to make sure a student can handle those classes academically. If they want fluff or personal interest kind of classes, then fine-they can pay the actual cost of it out of  their own pockets.  Taxpayer dollars are investments, not gifts.  All professors getting a taxfunded paycheck should be working full time in the classroom. There's no academic value that leads to employment in college sports. Taxpayers shouldn't be funding it.  You want college sports?  Then sell whatever you have to sell (tickets, paraphernalia) to fund it. The textbook nonsense has to stop too.  There is no reason for the ridiculous cost of textbooks or the need for new ones as frequently as it's happening now. 

 

I also think ps and public charter schools K-12 should only fund PE and academics that prepare students for college, highly skilled labor and the military.  Kids can do drama, soccer and cheerleading after school if they want, but not an the taxpayer's dime.  Those are before or after school classes that need other funding.  If between fundraising and donations there isn't enough money to do it, cut it. Put that money into teacher pay and maintaining buildings.

 

Some sort of independent auditing needs to happen on a regular basis in all those scenarios.  Money should go to teachers and classrooms first and then other places.  Taxpayers will be more willing to consider government funded schooling if they know those dollars are being well invested and not squandered on stupid things.  Until that happens, many people aren't even going to consider the idea.  If you want to play to win, you have to hear the opposition and address their very real concerns.  If you dismiss it as "mean" or "selfish" or whatever, you'll never make progress.  

 

 

 

 

With universities, it was taking away the tax dollars (funding) by states to their universities that has been a primary driver of the increasing costs for students. The value of athletics and the arts in schools has been well documented and they should not be pruned away--but funding limits might be reasonable. I'm not sure what you think are "fluff" classes in high school (other than drama)? 

[regentrude]

One option to make college more affordable would be to limit costs for all schools that receive federal financial aid.  Like, put a cap on charges so if a given university wants to pay high salaries to administrators, or build multimillion dollar gyms with climbing walls and lazy river pools, they could raise the money for that themselves.

 

The multimillion athletic and recreational facilities are typically paid from student fees for which the students vote.

 

College would be more affordable if the states would hold up their promises and give the colleges the financial allocations. Over the past decade, state funding has decreased - in some states to an extent that the functioning of universities is crippled. If the state does not give the allocated money, schools have to raise tuition - or have the same number of faculty teach much larger student numbers.

I work at a public university where enrollment has grown dramatically and the number of faculty and rooms remained basically steady. We have been cutting left and right and are expected to teach more students with fewer resources. That affects the quality of education. But if the taxpayer is not willing to fund higher education...

[Arcadia]

1. Will the number of people obtaining college degrees substantially increase?

2. Will it become more difficult to find a job without a college degree?

3. Will the quality of education received change?

4. How will we fund colleges...based on enrollment numbers? test scores (like public schools)?

It depends on how the program is carried out.

 

1. Are the colleges going to increase enrollment and overcrowd the colleges that are currently overcrowded more? Or does the enrolment numbers stay but whoever manage to get in does not need to worry about tuition fees.

 

If enrollment quota stays, only student debt goes down but the number of new college grads stay about the same.

 

2. If enrollment quota is not increased, than the free tuition effect is not there.

 

3. Quality may go up as students don't need to work so much part time to pay tuition and could dedicate more time to academics.

 

4. Probably enrollment numbers and maybe a minimum GPA from students to qualify for continued free tuition. Kind of like a yearly renewable scholarship but with a lower entry point.

 

My home country's tertiary education is heavily subsidised by the govt and private foundations make it free for poorer students. The ones graduating with some debt (ETA: as in not easily paid off after one year of work) is usually the students getting a MBBS (medicine degree).

Edited February 18, 2016 by Arcadia

[TranquilMind]

I'm not sure if this is considered political or not.  I simply want to know what people think about the idea of free college.  I just read an article from NPR about it, and haven't really given much thought about it until now.

 

The first questions that pop into my mind are:

 

1.  Will the number of people obtaining college degrees substantially increase?

2.  Will it become more difficult to find a job without a college degree?

3.  Will the quality of education received change?

4.  How will we fund colleges...based on enrollment numbers? test scores (like public schools)?

Well, they do it in Germany.  The taxes are higher.  Here, Bernie says he will put a tax on Wall Street speculators.  I don't know how that will play out.

 

Maybe like in Germany, the instruction needs to be free, but high level, and you sink or swim.  In one class, my student said that 70 began, and only 20 were there by Finals week.  That is some serious drop out rate.  It is all on you if you want to get a degree or not and you have to make it happen.  No one holds your hand or cares if you show up or not.  Saves tons on administration.   One has to meet rigorous requirements to get in (ACT scores, lots of AP's, language competency), but if you meet them, you are in.  None of this "they decide if you meet some ideal student profile" business. 

 

Not a bad idea. 

Edited February 18, 2016 by TranquilMind

[AmandaVT]

I think something needs to change. The cost of the college I started at (Gettysburg) has more than doubled since 1995 when I was there. I ended up completing my degree at one of our state schools for about 10% of what the tuition was at Gettysburg. My parents were able to pay out of pocket for my school and I will forever be grateful. 

 

DH has student loans that we've been paying faithfully on, never late, never missed, for almost 5 years now. The principal on them hasn't gone down at all. We pay almost $600 a month on a balance of $80k. And it's still 80k. I just downloaded our tax forms for 2015 and all but pennies went to interest. By my calculations, we've paid over $30k and the balance hasn't gone down at all. It's insane. 

 

 

[Haiku]

1.  Will the number of people obtaining college degrees substantially increase?

2.  Will it become more difficult to find a job without a college degree?

3.  Will the quality of education received change?

4.  How will we fund colleges...based on enrollment numbers? test scores (like public schools)?

 

1. Probably not. I used to live in a country that had "free" college. Not a substantially larger proportion of people went to college there than do here.

 

2. That doesn't depend on how many people go to college. That depends on what type of economy we set up. If we continue to become a service economy, eventually people with college degrees will have a harder time finding a job because employers will not be willing to pay the salaries that college-educated people will demand. 

 

3. Not because college is "free." If it changes, it will be for the same reasons it's changing now: students who graduate high school unprepared and students who have temper tantrums if they don't get a good grade.

 

4. Where I used to live, colleges were funded based on enrollment numbers. But there wasn't the competition for students that we see here. Students went to college to prepare for a job; the didn't go to college to have "the college experience." Most students lived at home or in apartments with other students and went to their local college.

[TranquilMind]

I think something needs to change. The cost of the college I started at (Gettysburg) has more than doubled since 1995 when I was there. I ended up completing my degree at one of our state schools for about 10% of what the tuition was at Gettysburg. My parents were able to pay out of pocket for my school and I will forever be grateful. 

 

DH has student loans that we've been paying faithfully on, never late, never missed, for almost 5 years now. The principal on them hasn't gone down at all. We pay almost $600 a month on a balance of $80k. And it's still 80k. I just downloaded our tax forms for 2015 and all but pennies went to interest. By my calculations, we've paid over $30k and the balance hasn't gone down at all. It's insane. 

Oh my goodness.  $80,000 total, and $600 a month?  Yowza. 

[TranquilMind]

1. Probably not. I used to live in a country that had "free" college. Not a substantially larger proportion of people went to college there than do here.

 

2. That doesn't depend on how many people go to college. That depends on what type of economy we set up. If we continue to become a service economy, eventually people with college degrees will have a harder time finding a job because employers will not be willing to pay the salaries that college-educated people will demand. 

 

3. Not because college is "free." If it changes, it will be for the same reasons it's changing now: students who graduate high school unprepared and students who have temper tantrums if they don't get a good grade.

 

4. Where I used to live, colleges were funded based on enrollment numbers. But there wasn't the competition for students that we see here. Students went to college to prepare for a job; the didn't go to college to have "the college experience." Most students lived at home or in apartments with other students and went to their local college.

Right.  All this.

 

The way it should work is that all paths are valued and you just self-select in based on abilities and interests.  I know people who have no business going to college because they are not academics or even really interested in academic things at all.  They think that they "should" go to college because this is what they are told.  They generally drop out and still have these bills to pay, and that's sad. 

You should go to university if your career path and interests dicatate it, not just because. 

[DawnM]

I'll start out by saying that my $15,000 in student loans were forgiven because I taught in very low income schools for 5 years, so thank you taxpayers! I think that loan forgiveness should be tied to public service.

 

When I was in public school, we were bussed across the city so that each school could be more racially and economically intergrated. I have no problem with that. There was a problem with tracking, though. The students were broken into 3 groups, regular, major works and vanguard. You only had classes with, or interacted with people in your group. Guess which group had the best teachers and smallest class sizes. There were 3 little schools within each school and these were very segregated.

 

So with "free college" I worry about it becoming like the star-bellied sneeches. Degrees from public colleges might no longer open doors. We are looking for graduates only from exclusive universities that don't participate in this government program. If people have an investment in keeping society divided into us and them, they are not going to give that up easily and say, "Wow, you have a college degree. You must be one of us now."

 

I agree with the previous posters who say that the changes need to start with the high schools. Here, the graduates from our upper middle class suburban high school are woefully unprepared for college, even the ones with extremely high grades. I could tell story after story. Something has to change there or college will just become even more watered down babysitting.

 

 

I don't know how it was where you were, but in LA, the kids bussed were the poor kids.  The rich kids didn't have to be bussed into the inner city, for one thing, they were already full, which is why bussing was required.   Second of all, everyone knew who the "bus" kids were.  Third of all, those bus kids had a hard time playing sports or being involved in activities.  Forth of all, the bus ride could run an hour or longer each way, from South LA to the Valley, often during busy traffic times.

 

I am not opposed to integration at all, it just seems that there is no easy solution.

 

They tried it in Pasadena for a long time (since the late 60s) and all it did was cause rich families (or middle income) to opt for private schools.  

 

Dawn

[TranquilMind]

I come from a country where college is free - to students. Of course nothing is ever free, so the money comes from higher taxes.

Students must pass a rigorous high school exit exam in order to be eligible to attend university. And they are not allowed to fail as often as they want; if they fail the same course three times, they have to leave the university.

 

If a society decides to make college free for students, it behoves to have measures in place that ensure that the students using this opportunity are equipped for success. For this reason, I do not think that the number of college degrees would increase, because I cannot fathom a system where there is no quality control that ensures this money is spent on capable students - in the form of entrance exams or weedout courses or strict regulations.

 

It is already difficult to find jobs without college degrees; I do not forsee a change.

 

The quality of education has nothing to do with who offers the funding. It is, OTOH, strongly coupled to the ability of a university to select which students to admit. (In my home country where universities are required to accept everybody who passed the college prep high school exit exam, with few exceptions, there is no such differentiation and thus no system of different quality schools has developed, as we have it in the US.)

 

If  a society decides to fund college through taxes, it should also fund other kinds of post secondary education for students who are more apt for a trade. In Germany, not just colleges are free, but also vocational schools.

 

ETA: The comparison of educated workforce in the linked article is problematic since it translates the definition of "college" to other systems that may not have a direct equivalent. In Germany, many fields that would be taught at a "college" in the US would be accomplished via vocational schools; German colleges should better be likened to American 4 year universities. So, any statistics that used German numbers for "college degrees" needs to specify what that is supposed to mean. There are fewer university degrees per capita in Germany than "college" degrees in the US, but a lot of people receive a college equivalent education at an institution that bears a different name. (The article briefly mentions that the German system is more complex).

This is interesting, thanks.  I wasn't aware that trade schools are also subsidized, and that is great.  Goodness knows, we certainly need trades!

[Crimson Wife]

I keep hearing the argument that students will appreciate it more and work harder if they have to pay for it.  I just don't get this.

 

My college was essentially free for me, as well as everyone else who went to a public university/college in my state back then.  To be honest, I don't really see any difference in the work ethic of students these days who are paying umpteen dollars for essentially the same education.

This study is relevant to the question of whether it is a good idea for students to have some "skin in the game": http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/01/16/want-your-kids-to-succeed-dont-pay-for-their-education/#2f27a56859dc

 

My parents could've afforded to fund 4 full years of college for my brothers and me but they chose to give us only 3 years' worth of funding each. That motivated me to graduate in 3 1/3 years. The last trimester I paid for with a combo of scholarships and PT/summer earnings. My youngest brother chose to do a junior year abroad in Japan (he was an East Asian Studies major) so he needed 4 years to graduate. He financed that with a small amount of student loan debt.

[SKL]

Here in the U.S, doesn't free college actually mean free tuition? I don't think most are advocating for totally free universities. Room/board, books, etc are much more than tuition at a 4-year.

 

Interesting point.  For those who don't live close enough to commute to a participating university, should there be additional subsidies so they can physically attend?  Also, what about the cost of feeding and housing adults whose parents aren't able/willing to do so?  Most people would have a tough time going to school full-time if they also had to work to cover their room & board. 

 

So then, would "free tuition" end up being a benefit that only those over a certain family income and/or in certain locations could realistically afford?

[SKL]

I think an important part of making college affordable is to develop web-based options for classes that don't really require in-person attendance.

 

Another idea is to bring some general college classes into high schools as evening courses.

[mims]

Learning responsibility and how your decisions affect your life are some of the most valuable things my kids can learn.  My kids knew early on that we think college debt is unhealthy and we had minimal finances to help them.  They started working summers in high school, saved every penny and knew their grades mattered.  My oldest 2 are making it through college without loans because of their savings, work during college, and some scholarships (nothing incredible).  I think they are so much more employable than so many kids that drift through college with no money concerns.   

Edited February 18, 2016 by mims

[regentrude]

Learning responsibility and how your decisions affect your life are some of the most valuable things my kids can learn.  My kids new early on that we think college debt is unhealthy and we had minimal finances to help them.  They started working summers in high school, saved every penny and new their grades mattered.  My oldest 2 are making it through college without loans because of their savings, work during college, and some scholarships (nothing incredible).  I think they are so much more employable than so many kids that drift through college with no money concerns.   

 

I disagree that working in high school and paying for school is the only way to become responsible.

FWIW, I come from a country with free college, where most teens do not work jobs. I have seen plenty of hardworking, responsible people.

 

I also see in my students here a broad spectrum. I see very hardworking responsible students who do not have to pay for their education, and I a see students who do pay or incur debt and who are slacking off.

 

My DD works her butt off at college, is one of the most responsible people I know - yet did not, until this semester, hold a paid job, or is responsible for her own college cost. It is precisely because she is responsible that we have absolutely no qualms about paying for her education.

No, making college expensive so that "kids learn a lesson" seems a poor way in fostering responsibility.

[Crimson Wife]

As for the importance? Look back to the Lincoln administration. I think he started over 50 land grant colleges-- and I think they were basically free for students, and relatively inexpensive until the past 3 decades. All done In the name of making our country better.

 

Yes, but at that time only a small minority of students even graduated high school, let alone went to college. This "college for everyone" idea has left funding unable to keep up with demand.