Honestly I like Bernie; Students should study for free

[Grace Is Stoked]

Nobody gets a free lunch in life.

Period.

To be fair, not having to pay tuition does not necessarily mean that the student has not worked hard or will not work hard. It just means it's much more affordable for people to be able to get a better education and make a better life for themselves and their future family.

Everybody has to pay tuition. They have in the past in the present and the future.

I just think we can do better. Just because something has been a certain way doesn't mean it's the best way.

 

[gtopa1]

Yes I would. Randomness is just cruel.

Lets say we have 10 dice.
Capitalism: Random rolls, some 6, some 1, who knows
Democratic Socialism: We patiently place each dice down on a 4 or 5. Everyone does well.

How is that bad?

In Capitalism you make your own luck. In Socialism you depend on your programmer.

Greg

 

[gtopa1]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee.

Why is it reasonable?

Education is an important part of society. In many ways it ensures the future of a country and its people. When I say that it's reasonable I mean just that really. Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

Education is an important part of society

I support my local k-12 with my property taxes. Why should I also have to pay for adults to attend college?

Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

We should do that. We'd only be letting the top 10% or so of our high school graduates to attend college.
We could use the endowments and property owned by all the colleges we'd be closing, to pay for the college expenses of the students who qualify.

The high school graduates who won't be attending college will need to get jobs.

You'd be in essence creating a version of a caste system by doing that though.

You said you wanted to guarantee quality education. Were you lying?

For all, not for select people. I believe that all kids who graduate from high school should be able to attend a public university or a trade school without having to worry about paying tuition. They would still need to pay semester fees and other expenses but today's tuition prices are not only crippling to hundreds of thousands of students who already took out loans to make it through but it's also a huge barrier and decision for kids and parents that want to go to college and want to send their kid to college but are fearful of what the debt will do to them. We can't keep looking at the current system and think that it's acceptable or a sustainable method of educating the future of our country, it's not in my opinion.

We tried that here in Oz in the 70s and it failed to change the demographic one iota. Better the more comfortable pay fees and the poor bright kids get scholarships. But true; tuition fees are at rip-off levels.

Greg

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee.

Why is it reasonable?

Education is an important part of society. In many ways it ensures the future of a country and its people. When I say that it's reasonable I mean just that really. Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

Education is an important part of society

I support my local k-12 with my property taxes. Why should I also have to pay for adults to attend college?

Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

We should do that. We'd only be letting the top 10% or so of our high school graduates to attend college.
We could use the endowments and property owned by all the colleges we'd be closing, to pay for the college expenses of the students who qualify.

The high school graduates who won't be attending college will need to get jobs.

You'd be in essence creating a version of a caste system by doing that though.

You said you wanted to guarantee quality education. Were you lying?

For all, not for select people. I believe that all kids who graduate from high school should be able to attend a public university or a trade school without having to worry about paying tuition. They would still need to pay semester fees and other expenses but today's tuition prices are not only crippling to hundreds of thousands of students who already took out loans to make it through but it's also a huge barrier and decision for kids and parents that want to go to college and want to send their kid to college but are fearful of what the debt will do to them. We can't keep looking at the current system and think that it's acceptable or a sustainable method of educating the future of our country, it's not in my opinion.

For all, not for select people.

Nah. Look at the billions currently wasted on stupid degrees that don't help with employment.
Or wasted on degrees never completed. The endless flow of unrestricted government dollars
has inflated tuition, hired useless bureaucrats and diluted the value of a bachelors degree.

I believe that all kids who graduate from high school should be able to attend a public university or a trade school without having to worry about paying tuition.

I believe that all kids who graduate from high school should be able to own a nice home and car without having to worry about paying a mortgage or a car loan. How much can you spare for my kids in a few years?

We can't keep looking at the current system and think that it's acceptable or a sustainable method of educating the future of our country

I'm with you 100%!!!

The first step, get the federal government out of the college loan business.
Step number two, only allow colleges to lend money for tuition.
If students fail to graduate or fail to get a job after graduation that allows them to
repay their loan, let the college eat it.

What do you say? Nothing like putting the college in the same boat as the awesome students they'll soon
be educating.

 

[Indeependent]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee.

Why is it reasonable?

Education is an important part of society. In many ways it ensures the future of a country and its people. When I say that it's reasonable I mean just that really. Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

Education is an important part of society

I support my local k-12 with my property taxes. Why should I also have to pay for adults to attend college?

Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

We should do that. We'd only be letting the top 10% or so of our high school graduates to attend college.
We could use the endowments and property owned by all the colleges we'd be closing, to pay for the college expenses of the students who qualify.

The high school graduates who won't be attending college will need to get jobs.

You'd be in essence creating a version of a caste system by doing that though.

You said you wanted to guarantee quality education. Were you lying?

For all, not for select people. I believe that all kids who graduate from high school should be able to attend a public university or a trade school without having to worry about paying tuition. They would still need to pay semester fees and other expenses but today's tuition prices are not only crippling to hundreds of thousands of students who already took out loans to make it through but it's also a huge barrier and decision for kids and parents that want to go to college and want to send their kid to college but are fearful of what the debt will do to them. We can't keep looking at the current system and think that it's acceptable or a sustainable method of educating the future of our country, it's not in my opinion.

Take a guess as to why college tuition skyrocketed; especially amongst the universities that are arguing that “Asians are smarter than Americans”.
It’s very clever to import students to take the jobs the Americans studied for.
This all happened during the GW/Obama era.

 

[Picaro]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee. That being said just because the university may not have a tuition requirement anymore does not mean that fees and other expenses would not still apply. Semester fees for example could go towards part of the student life experiences on campus along with other things such as books, recreation, and other on-campus amenities. The only differences would be that the semester fees would not become crippling debt.

One thing I do support is universities and corporations being sued and held fully liable for lying about 'job shortages' that encourage students to make bad choices; it's fraud, period, and need to be shut down and the costs paid for by the scum who do it. Also no need for green cards, either; if they can't attract qualified help they can pay to train their own employees; it's not up to the state to train them at public expense or provide them with 100 qualified persons for every job they have open.

You want to major in Art History or some other screw off party school 'major' you're on your own.

 

[Picaro]

Education is an important part of society. In many ways it ensures the future of a country and its people. When I say that it's reasonable I mean just that really. Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

Education is an important part of society

I support my local k-12 with my property taxes. Why should I also have to pay for adults to attend college?

Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

We should do that. We'd only be letting the top 10% or so of our high school graduates to attend college.
We could use the endowments and property owned by all the colleges we'd be closing, to pay for the college expenses of the students who qualify.

The high school graduates who won't be attending college will need to get jobs.

You'd be in essence creating a version of a caste system by doing that though.

You said you wanted to guarantee quality education. Were you lying?

For all, not for select people. I believe that all kids who graduate from high school should be able to attend a public university or a trade school without having to worry about paying tuition. They would still need to pay semester fees and other expenses but today's tuition prices are not only crippling to hundreds of thousands of students who already took out loans to make it through but it's also a huge barrier and decision for kids and parents that want to go to college and want to send their kid to college but are fearful of what the debt will do to them. We can't keep looking at the current system and think that it's acceptable or a sustainable method of educating the future of our country, it's not in my opinion.

Take a guess as to why college tuition skyrocketed; especially amongst the universities that are arguing that “Asians are smarter than Americans”.
It’s very clever to import students to take the jobs the Americans studied for.
This all happened during the GW/Obama era.

Exactly. It's been a total scam for decades in the software industry. Started in the 1980's, actually.

 

[bripat9643]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee. That being said just because the university may not have a tuition requirement anymore does not mean that fees and other expenses would not still apply. Semester fees for example could go towards part of the student life experiences on campus along with other things such as books, recreation, and other on-campus amenities. The only differences would be that the semester fees would not become crippling debt.

Why is that reasonable? It's not even reasonable for the government to pay for K-12.

 

[bripat9643]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee. That being said just because the university may not have a tuition requirement anymore does not mean that fees and other expenses would not still apply. Semester fees for example could go towards part of the student life experiences on campus along with other things such as books, recreation, and other on-campus amenities. The only differences would be that the semester fees would not become crippling debt.

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee.

Why is it reasonable?

Education is an important part of society. In many ways it ensures the future of a country and its people. When I say that it's reasonable I mean just that really. Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

You're delusional if you believe government can "guarantee quality education."

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee. That being said just because the university may not have a tuition requirement anymore does not mean that fees and other expenses would not still apply. Semester fees for example could go towards part of the student life experiences on campus along with other things such as books, recreation, and other on-campus amenities. The only differences would be that the semester fees would not become crippling debt.

Why is that reasonable? It's not even reasonable for the government to pay for K-12.

I would disagree that it’s not reasonable. I view it as much more unreasonable to expect millions of families to have to pay for education from kindergarten through high school. It would result in a very high percentage of uneducated children and an even more divided class system in my opinion. A sensible approach would be to ensure equal access to education. It’s in the best interest of our country’s future in my opinion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee. That being said just because the university may not have a tuition requirement anymore does not mean that fees and other expenses would not still apply. Semester fees for example could go towards part of the student life experiences on campus along with other things such as books, recreation, and other on-campus amenities. The only differences would be that the semester fees would not become crippling debt.

Would it shock you to know that most people don't see minor children and legal adults in the same light?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee. That being said just because the university may not have a tuition requirement anymore does not mean that fees and other expenses would not still apply. Semester fees for example could go towards part of the student life experiences on campus along with other things such as books, recreation, and other on-campus amenities. The only differences would be that the semester fees would not become crippling debt.

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee.

Why is it reasonable?

Education is an important part of society. In many ways it ensures the future of a country and its people. When I say that it's reasonable I mean just that really. Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

Lots of things are an important part of society. Doesn't mean that the people around you are obligated to provide them to you.

And the difference between teaching minor children basic functional things like reading, arithmetic, English skills, etc. and prepping legal adults for their completely voluntary and personal choice of career is still undeniable. You want to talk about "reasonable"? It's reasonable to say that the dividing line for personal responsibility is legal adulthood.

 

[Indeependent]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee. That being said just because the university may not have a tuition requirement anymore does not mean that fees and other expenses would not still apply. Semester fees for example could go towards part of the student life experiences on campus along with other things such as books, recreation, and other on-campus amenities. The only differences would be that the semester fees would not become crippling debt.

Why is that reasonable? It's not even reasonable for the government to pay for K-12.

I would disagree that it’s not reasonable. I view it as much more unreasonable to expect millions of families to have to pay for education from kindergarten through high school. It would result in a very high percentage of uneducated children and an even more divided class system in my opinion. A sensible approach would be to ensure equal access to education. It’s in the best interest of our country’s future in my opinion.

First thing is Americans and future Americans only in the work force.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nobody gets a free lunch in life.

Period.

To be fair, not having to pay tuition does not necessarily mean that the student has not worked hard or will not work hard. It just means it's much more affordable for people to be able to get a higher education and try to make a better life for themselves and their future family.

To be fair, it makes it more likely that they won't work hard and/or won't choose something relevant and useful.

And "more affordable" isn't a winning argument when what you actually mean is "more affordable for THEM by shifting the cost to YOU". Their "better life for themselves and their future family" is not MY problem, especially at the cost of MY better life for my CURRENT family.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee. That being said just because the university may not have a tuition requirement anymore does not mean that fees and other expenses would not still apply. Semester fees for example could go towards part of the student life experiences on campus along with other things such as books, recreation, and other on-campus amenities. The only differences would be that the semester fees would not become crippling debt.

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee.

Why is it reasonable?

Education is an important part of society. In many ways it ensures the future of a country and its people. When I say that it's reasonable I mean just that really. Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

Education is an important part of society

I support my local k-12 with my property taxes. Why should I also have to pay for adults to attend college?

Guaranteeing quality education in this country can only help it in the long run in my opinion.

We should do that. We'd only be letting the top 10% or so of our high school graduates to attend college.
We could use the endowments and property owned by all the colleges we'd be closing, to pay for the college expenses of the students who qualify.

The high school graduates who won't be attending college will need to get jobs.

You'd be in essence creating a version of a caste system by doing that though.

Newsflash, punkin: Nature already did that. You can't wish that away.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee. That being said just because the university may not have a tuition requirement anymore does not mean that fees and other expenses would not still apply. Semester fees for example could go towards part of the student life experiences on campus along with other things such as books, recreation, and other on-campus amenities. The only differences would be that the semester fees would not become crippling debt.

Why is that reasonable? It's not even reasonable for the government to pay for K-12.

I would disagree that it’s not reasonable. I view it as much more unreasonable to expect millions of families to have to pay for education from kindergarten through high school. It would result in a very high percentage of uneducated children and an even more divided class system in my opinion. A sensible approach would be to ensure equal access to education. It’s in the best interest of our country’s future in my opinion.

Sweetie, EVERYONE pays for primary education, not just the parents. Public schools are funded primarily through local property taxes, state education departments (ie. state taxes), and when necessary, local bond issues.

What you really appear to find "unreasonable" is that we don't treat grown adults like children.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Public education is already "free" for k-12 and so it's reasonable in my personal opinion for pre-k as well as public universities to be part of that guarantee. That being said just because the university may not have a tuition requirement anymore does not mean that fees and other expenses would not still apply. Semester fees for example could go towards part of the student life experiences on campus along with other things such as books, recreation, and other on-campus amenities. The only differences would be that the semester fees would not become crippling debt.

Why is that reasonable? It's not even reasonable for the government to pay for K-12.

I would disagree that it’s not reasonable. I view it as much more unreasonable to expect millions of families to have to pay for education from kindergarten through high school. It would result in a very high percentage of uneducated children and an even more divided class system in my opinion. A sensible approach would be to ensure equal access to education. It’s in the best interest of our country’s future in my opinion.

Sweetie, EVERYONE pays for primary education, not just the parents. Public schools are funded primarily through local property taxes, state education departments (ie. state taxes), and when necessary, local bond issues.

What you really appear to find "unreasonable" is that we don't treat grown adults like children.

Yes they do but not in the form of tuition. If you turn all education from K through 12 private then that is what you would have and you would have a massive gap between those that are able to obtain an education and those that can't in my opinion.

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Nobody gets a free lunch in life.

Period.

To be fair, not having to pay tuition does not necessarily mean that the student has not worked hard or will not work hard. It just means it's much more affordable for people to be able to get a higher education and try to make a better life for themselves and their future family.

To be fair, it makes it more likely that they won't work hard and/or won't choose something relevant and useful.

And "more affordable" isn't a winning argument when what you actually mean is "more affordable for THEM by shifting the cost to YOU". Their "better life for themselves and their future family" is not MY problem, especially at the cost of MY better life for my CURRENT family.

I would disagree that they wouldn't work hard because the way higher eduction is currently set up in this country does not have to stay that way, it can change, it can be reimagined. Take our current educational system and the route a student has to choose as they navigate through high school. It's either graduate from high school and take out a huge loan for college (if you aren't lucky enough to have parents that can help) to study something that you haven't really decided on yet to hopefully then get a job with four years later OR you put college off to go get a job in which every year that goes by the likelihood of going back to college reduces significantly. So realistically it's either do what's expected, which is go to college, but put yourself in debt or you don't go to college and begin working but with the knowledge that your future could be limited without a degree. Now sure there are potential alternatives but for the most part this is the choice most teenagers are faced with.

What I am saying is that we should look at the educational system in this country and instead of building off of what we have and accepting that as they way it is we should look at the system and determine if this is really the best we can do. Is this really the only way it can work. In my opinion our system needs to be redesigned to make sure that the decision made at 18 years old isn't a life changing event but a stepping stone to a more sustainable future.

So for me I would make it so that graduating high school immediately qualifies you for either college or a vocational trade school in which it's the students choice which direction they want to go based off of their interests. If you want to be a welder you can go to the vocational school and learn to be a welder. If you want to be a biologist or a math teacher then you can go to college and study to be a biologist or a math teacher. If you want to go into a field that requires more educational investment like medical school or law school then your grades in high school would qualify you for those specific routes. If you didn't have the grades in high school then you could then qualify for medical school after the completion of a designated amount of years of college with a good GPA. Just a thought, it could vary.

As for costs for the student they would pay semester fees for things like room & board, books, recreation, food, and things like that on campus, a few hundred dollars per semester basically, but there wouldn't be a traditional tuition. Graduation qualifies you for college or trade school, your grades in high school qualify you for specific types of schools, and your interests help you determine the route. Get rid of two years of unnecessary classes and other inefficiencies that burden students and cause a lengthier stay in college and educate based on what the student is there for in my opinion.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nobody gets a free lunch in life.

Period.

To be fair, not having to pay tuition does not necessarily mean that the student has not worked hard or will not work hard. It just means it's much more affordable for people to be able to get a higher education and try to make a better life for themselves and their future family.

To be fair, it makes it more likely that they won't work hard and/or won't choose something relevant and useful.

And "more affordable" isn't a winning argument when what you actually mean is "more affordable for THEM by shifting the cost to YOU". Their "better life for themselves and their future family" is not MY problem, especially at the cost of MY better life for my CURRENT family.

I would disagree that they wouldn't work hard because the way higher eduction is currently set up in this country does not have to stay that way, it can change, it can be reimagined. Take our current educational system and the route a student has to choose as they navigate through high school. It's either graduate from high school and take out a huge loan for college (if you aren't lucky enough to have parents that can help) to study something that you haven't really decided on yet to hopefully then get a job with four years later OR you put college off to go get a job in which every year that goes by the likelihood of going back to college reduces significantly. So realistically it's either do what's expected, which is go to college, but put yourself in debt or you don't go to college and begin working but with the knowledge that your future could be limited without a degree. Now sure there are potential alternatives but for the most part this is the choice most teenagers are faced with.

What I am saying is that we should look at the educational system in this country and instead of building off of what we have and accepting that as they way it is we should look at the system and determine if this is really the best we can do. Is this really the only way it can work. In my opinion our system needs to be redesigned to make sure that the decision made at 18 years old isn't a life changing event but a stepping stone to a more sustainable future.

So for me I would make it so that graduating high school immediately qualifies you for either college or a vocational trade school in which it's the students choice which direction they want to go based off of their interests. If you want to be a welder you can go to the vocational school and learn to be a welder. If you want to be a biologist or a math teacher then you can go to college and study to be a biologist or a math teacher. If you want to go into a field that requires more educational investment like medical school or law school then your grades in high school would qualify you for those specific routes. If you didn't have the grades in high school then you could then qualify for medical school after the completion of a designated amount of years of college with a good GPA. Just a thought, it could vary.

As for costs for the student they would pay semester fees for things like room & board, books, recreation, food, and things like that on campus, a few hundred dollars per semester basically, but there wouldn't be a traditional tuition. Graduation qualifies you for college or trade school, your grades in high school qualify you for specific types of schools, and your interests help you determine the route. Get rid of two years of unnecessary classes and other inefficiencies that burden students and cause a lengthier stay in college and educate based on what the student is there for in my opinion.

That's an awful lot of words to say, "I don't want to change anything except to have someone else pay for me to have it."

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

Nobody gets a free lunch in life.

Period.

To be fair, not having to pay tuition does not necessarily mean that the student has not worked hard or will not work hard. It just means it's much more affordable for people to be able to get a higher education and try to make a better life for themselves and their future family.

To be fair, it makes it more likely that they won't work hard and/or won't choose something relevant and useful.

And "more affordable" isn't a winning argument when what you actually mean is "more affordable for THEM by shifting the cost to YOU". Their "better life for themselves and their future family" is not MY problem, especially at the cost of MY better life for my CURRENT family.

I would disagree that they wouldn't work hard because the way higher eduction is currently set up in this country does not have to stay that way, it can change, it can be reimagined. Take our current educational system and the route a student has to choose as they navigate through high school. It's either graduate from high school and take out a huge loan for college (if you aren't lucky enough to have parents that can help) to study something that you haven't really decided on yet to hopefully then get a job with four years later OR you put college off to go get a job in which every year that goes by the likelihood of going back to college reduces significantly. So realistically it's either do what's expected, which is go to college, but put yourself in debt or you don't go to college and begin working but with the knowledge that your future could be limited without a degree. Now sure there are potential alternatives but for the most part this is the choice most teenagers are faced with.

What I am saying is that we should look at the educational system in this country and instead of building off of what we have and accepting that as they way it is we should look at the system and determine if this is really the best we can do. Is this really the only way it can work. In my opinion our system needs to be redesigned to make sure that the decision made at 18 years old isn't a life changing event but a stepping stone to a more sustainable future.

So for me I would make it so that graduating high school immediately qualifies you for either college or a vocational trade school in which it's the students choice which direction they want to go based off of their interests. If you want to be a welder you can go to the vocational school and learn to be a welder. If you want to be a biologist or a math teacher then you can go to college and study to be a biologist or a math teacher. If you want to go into a field that requires more educational investment like medical school or law school then your grades in high school would qualify you for those specific routes. If you didn't have the grades in high school then you could then qualify for medical school after the completion of a designated amount of years of college with a good GPA. Just a thought, it could vary.

As for costs for the student they would pay semester fees for things like room & board, books, recreation, food, and things like that on campus, a few hundred dollars per semester basically, but there wouldn't be a traditional tuition. Graduation qualifies you for college or trade school, your grades in high school qualify you for specific types of schools, and your interests help you determine the route. Get rid of two years of unnecessary classes and other inefficiencies that burden students and cause a lengthier stay in college and educate based on what the student is there for in my opinion.

That's an awful lot of words to say, "I don't want to change anything except to have someone else pay for me to have it."

It was a lot of words yes but if you read them you would have seen that I want to change quite a few things.