Obama to propose two free years of community college for students

[dps]

I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level?  The problem, of course, is paying for it.  "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs.  No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job.  That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.

[Admiral Yi]

Gives them a degree that they didn't have to pay for.

It gives a bunch of kids who don't need the money a tuition free degree, takes it away from the poor kids who can't afford room and board, and ends up costing more because of the private school kids who switch to public.

[Grey Fox]

Less private schools is a good thing.

[crazy canuck]

It would also leave private universities very, very expensive Timmy.

So what?

Well, for one thing, the article is comparing apples to oranges.  It claims that it would cost $62.6B to fund undergraduate tuition at public universities for those students currently attending them, compared to $69B the feds currently spend on higher education.  But, that ignores that some of that $69B is going to students who are at private schools, or attending post-graduate schools, and the big fact that even if tuition were free, there are other expenses involved in attending college, so even with free tuition, college still wouldn't be free.   I don't know what the current numbers are, but I know that when I was in school, tuition was less than half of the fees I paid directly to the school.  I lived in a dorm, and the room and board for the dorm was considerably higher just by itself than the tuition was, and there were other fees and such we had to pay when we registered for a semester.   

Agreed, the notion that loan programs would not be required if this expense doesnt make much sense.

But the question of better funding for public instutions tied to a reduction in tuition fees is a worthy topic of debate.

[11B4V]

What does Obama mean by "work for it"?

[crazy canuck]

Less private schools is a good thing.

I remember you making that argument before, but I can't remember why you take that position.  So, no troll intended, why do you think that is a good thing?

[garbon]

What does Obama mean by "work for it"?

[crazy canuck]

I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level?  The problem, of course, is paying for it.  "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs.  No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job.  That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.

Again I agree with you.  If tuition levels are reduced then funding has to come from government to make up the shortfall.  The problem is that in every jurisdiction I know of where fee reduction/freezes have been put in place government does not fund the shortfall and education quality suffers signficantly.

[11B4V]

What does Obama mean by "work for it"?

All I see is an X. Govmint comp.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level?  The problem, of course, is paying for it.  "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs.  No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job.  That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.

The non-financial argument against is not all jobs require a college degree.

Before: I would guess something like Vista or an equivalent.

[11B4V]

I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level?  The problem, of course, is paying for it.  "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs.  No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job.  That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.

The non-financial argument against is not all jobs require a college degree.

Before: I would guess something like Vista or an equivalent.

Guess I'm being dense, but WTF is Vista. The windows program?

[Admiral Yi]

Guess I'm being dense, but WTF is Vista. The windows program?

Domestic Peace Corps, part of LBJ's Great Society.

[crazy canuck]

I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level?  The problem, of course, is paying for it.  "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs.  No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job.  That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.

The non-financial argument against is not all jobs require a college degree.

Before: I would guess something like Vista or an equivalent.

The non-financial argument for is:

having a highly educated public creates a better society;
greater social mobility requires access to higher education for those who would otherwise not be able to afford it; and
(one that will appeal to your market driven heart) a more educated work force is a more productive work force.

[dps]

I don't have a problem, at least in theory, with making higher education in public colleges and universities free--after all, we do it at the primary and secondary lever, so why not at the college level?  The problem, of course, is paying for it.  "Free" in context obviously actually means free for the students and their families, not that someone is going to have to cover the costs.  No way slightly less than $70B is going to do the job.  That's gotta be an underestimation at least by a factor of 10, and probably by a lot more than that.

The non-financial argument against is not all jobs require a college degree.

Before: I would guess something like Vista or an equivalent.

The non-financial argument for is:

having a highly educated public creates a better society;
greater social mobility requires access to higher education for those who would otherwise not be able to afford it; and
(one that will appeal to your market driven heart) a more educated work force is a more productive work force.

I'm not sure about Yi's non-financial argument against, anyway.  I don't think we've said that everyone should go to college, just talked about how to pay for college for those that choose to attend.  A lot of the people who I went to high school with had no desire to go on to college, even if it had been free.

B4:  Vista:  Volunteers in Service to America.

[11B4V]

Gotcha thanks. Yi/dps