More evidence of my growing commie-socialism...

[Berkut]

Stuff like this is what makes me crazy annoyed at our current system which seems to combine the worst of options when it comes to how we fund shit:


http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/heres-exactly-how-much-the-government-would-have-to-spend-to-make-public-college-tuition-free/282803/


Cost to the federal government to just make public colleges free: somewhere between $40 and $65 billion dollars a year.
How much the federal government currently spends on a hodgepodge of various funding/grant programs, much of which (~25%) goes to private schools: $69 billion a year.

[The Brain]

How's that tree with Ide?

[Berkut]

How's that tree with Ide?

There is a rather large difference between me and Ide.

Ide thinks schools should be free just because free is good, and who cares what it costs?

I think if we are going to shell out $70 billion a year in an inefficient, stupid, and counter-productive manner that is just driving up the costs to go to school anyway (which simple Econ 101 tells us is exactly what is going to happen), we might as well use that money in a more effective and productive manner.

Ide is a starry-eyed idealist disconnected from reality.

I am very much a pragmatic sorta idealist who is just tired of doing things the worst way possible.

[Darth Wagtaros]

It isn't entirely ridiculous.  Transfer private debt into public expense.  So long as those gubbermint programs were actually shut down and the funds redirected, rather than simply adding school shtuff onto the budget.  Which won't happen.

[garbon]

Bit of an odd headline given that the author - in his lengthier post, notes that he wouldn't want it to be free for everyone.

[sbr]

Bit of an odd headline given that the author - in his lengthier post, notes that he wouldn't want it to be free for everyone.

The headline matches the article of the post pretty well, and why should the headline of this post have anything to do with something the author wrote 10 months ago?

[DGuller]

I think all of us will be much better off in the long run if universities were all public and essentially free, except for maybe some few elite ones, and had a significant meritocratic barrier to entry.  That's the only way I see to stop degree inflation and the student debt explosion.

[garbon]

Bit of an odd headline given that the author - in his lengthier post, notes that he wouldn't want it to be free for everyone.

The headline matches the article of the post pretty well, and why should the headline of this post have anything to do with something the author wrote 10 months ago?

Because per his older article, he doesn't actually advocate for one the headline suggests he might support. He even mentions in this piece that he doesn't likely support doing so...and that the most recent article is something he likes to post repeatedly with this being a cribbed version of his earlier one.

The article for me highlights more that our current system is wasteful and not the supposed thesis that we should make all public tuition free.

[garbon]

Oh also, as he notes in his previous article - making it tuition free is just one piece and that for poorer students, the biggest issue is the associated costs of living.

[Josephus]

Oh also, as he notes in his previous article - making it tuition free is just one piece and that for poorer students, the biggest issue is the associated costs of living.

Stipends.

[sbr]

Here's Exactly How Much the Government Would Have to Spend to Make Public College Tuition-Free

I don't see the headline showing his support for anything.  I see it as the headline for a quick blurb that discusses how much it would cost for the government to make public college tuition free.  I don't see an opinion in either the headline or post, if there is any opinion in the post it is not about whether we should or not.

And aren't most headlines written by someone other than the author?

[garbon]

Oh also, as he notes in his previous article - making it tuition free is just one piece and that for poorer students, the biggest issue is the associated costs of living.

Stipends.

Which is money that has to come from somewhere and not accounted for in the figure he provided. (Though his earlier article has him suggesting that the funding should come from wealthier students.)

[garbon]

Here's Exactly How Much the Government Would Have to Spend to Make Public College Tuition-Free

I don't see the headline showing his support for anything.  I see it as the headline for a quick blurb that discusses how much it would cost for the government to make public college tuition free.  I don't see an opinion in either the headline or post, if there is any opinion in the post it is not about whether we should or not.

And aren't most headlines written by someone other than the author?

I think with that headline and a quick gloss of the article, one could come away with the opinion that the federal gov't should move forwards with that.

I don't know about that latter bit. In his other article he makes it seem that the headline was his decision.

[sbr]

Here's Exactly How Much the Government Would Have to Spend to Make Public College Tuition-Free

I don't see the headline showing his support for anything.  I see it as the headline for a quick blurb that discusses how much it would cost for the government to make public college tuition free.  I don't see an opinion in either the headline or post, if there is any opinion in the post it is not about whether we should or not.

And aren't most headlines written by someone other than the author?

I think with that headline and a quick gloss of the article, one could come away with the opinion that the federal gov't should move forwards with that.

I don't know about that latter bit. In his other article he makes it seem that the headline was his decision.

A quick gloss of the article?  It is what 300 words? 

The post lays out numbers and facts; the headline supports the statement of facts.  It is the reader's problem if he then sees some hidden opinion in there.

[garbon]

Here's Exactly How Much the Government Would Have to Spend to Make Public College Tuition-Free

I don't see the headline showing his support for anything.  I see it as the headline for a quick blurb that discusses how much it would cost for the government to make public college tuition free.  I don't see an opinion in either the headline or post, if there is any opinion in the post it is not about whether we should or not.

And aren't most headlines written by someone other than the author?

I think with that headline and a quick gloss of the article, one could come away with the opinion that the federal gov't should move forwards with that.

I don't know about that latter bit. In his other article he makes it seem that the headline was his decision.

A quick gloss of the article?  It is what 300 words? 

The post lays out numbers and facts; the headline supports the statement of facts.  It is the reader's problem if he then sees some hidden opinion in there.

Actually the author put in a stated agenda about us having a wasteful system when he prefers a public option.