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/ (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.
How's that tree with Ide?
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2014, 10:42:38 AM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2014, 11:27:37 AM
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.
:huh:
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?
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.
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2014, 11:39:57 AM
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2014, 11:27:37 AM
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.
:huh:
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.
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.
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2014, 12:02:05 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Josephus on January 04, 2014, 12:06:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2014, 12:02:05 PM
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.)
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2014, 12:07:36 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2014, 12:10:48 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2014, 12:07:36 PM
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? :lol:
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.
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2014, 12:16:07 PM
Quote from: garbon on January 04, 2014, 12:10:48 PM
Quote from: sbr on January 04, 2014, 12:07:36 PM
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? :lol:
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.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2014, 10:25:37 AM
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/ (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.
I am surprised that during all the Obamacare debate, there wasn't a similar article on healthcare (at least, I had never seen one). As the underlying principles/concepts are similar. A Canadian-esque single-payer system vs. the hodgepodge of Medicare/Medicaid, a variety of state-level programs, Social Security insurance, and the costs associated with all the for-profit private insurance systems.
But on free, college education...I think one of the big arguments that will come up is college education as an entitlement.
Even now, public universities (especially the "Public Ivy Leagues", i.e. University of Washington) can restrict the student population ultimately just on how many students they can accommodate. If you remove the cost factor, the number of students who want to enroll will almost certainly surge. And then it will likely be a matter of significantly increasing the academic standards to even apply.
And then you have to figure how the "free" system will work. Would it allow for the "professional student" who switches majors every semester, or would it be like our Post-9/11 GI Bill system (you have a strict 3/4 year timeframe to get your degree, and you get only one shot at the major of your choice). What about someone who needs a new education to switch careers later in life (due to layoffs, etc)?
It seems he is breaking this down into three buckets:
-work study
-grants
-tax breaks
Work study is a really small piece, but it is actually used to produce stuff.
If grants are referring to pell grants, than that is probably a reasonably clean number.
The tax break number could have a who variety of education related (and even research related) tax stuff in there.
Also, the numbers for all these programs almost certainly includes undergrad and graduate programs. The ~$60b is undergrad only. If the idea is to scrap the current programs and make undergraduate education free, a major problem I see is that poor students may lose much ability to become doctors or lawyers (and we need one of those occupations). If the idea is to add on to the current programs free undergrad education, ~$60b a year is a lot of money.
come back when you're calling entrepreneurs national-socialists, as a parti-socialiste big guy said today....
I don't see the point of taking the money we're giving to students at both public and private schools that they're using on both tuition and living expenses, and spending it only on public school tuition.
I want the gubbermint to give me back the money I spent paying off my student loans plz.
Whatever makes it so Dorsey4Russel and Ide stop trying to claim being Hispanic sounds good to me.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on January 04, 2014, 01:48:01 PM
come back when you're calling entrepreneurs national-socialists, as a parti-socialiste big guy said today....
That would make some conservatives in this country socialists then.
Quote from: Berkut on January 04, 2014, 11:05:22 AM
Quote from: The Brain on January 04, 2014, 10:42:38 AM
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?
You know nothing of my work.
Seriously, that pretty radically misrepresents my views on higher education. I've said it either needs to be subject to a command economy or to the free market. No more of the deformed mutant attempts to mix the two have caused.
Non-STEM degrees = death penalty?
QuoteI am surprised that during all the Obamacare debate, there wasn't a similar article on healthcare (at least, I had never seen one). As the underlying principles/concepts are similar. A Canadian-esque single-payer system vs. the hodgepodge of Medicare/Medicaid, a variety of state-level programs, Social Security insurance, and the costs associated with all the for-profit private insurance systems.
If there's one thing I learned from Obama's time in power its that the American right loves inefficiency and waste.
Quote from: DGuller on January 04, 2014, 11:47:09 AM
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.
Surely if we can only have a few then it is the elite ones that should be free?