Public funded associates degree might actually be beneficial to society

[kaz]

Ever since that nut case Sanders came up with the idea, I have been playing with the thought in my mind. Naturally being a good conservative I was forced to immediately speak out against the idea. mostly because it came from a liberal and because it means more of my tax dollar being spent on "welfare" that had no benefit to me.
However after thinking about it now for some time I see where it actually could be somewhat of a good thing if done properly. And, if done properly I dont think it would cost anywhere near as much as people think.
My idea would be to essentially extend high school by two years. Yes the little tykes get to have their prom and get their high school diploma after meeting the requirements upon graduating the 12th grade, but, they still 2 more years of public education. It could even be optional for them.
One of the problems that I see is that there are too many fields of study to offer two years for free, so Im thinking, what if that two year degree was a liberal arts degree? It is true that one would have a difficult time finding a great paying job with a degree of any level if that degree was liberal arts, but there really is a value in that degree.
It teaches critical thinking, students come away with that degree with a greater ability to look for alternatives to a problem, they have the ability to look at given information and analyze that information with a greater understanding, and as I said the thought process to not only see it in different ways but also to utilize the information in more ways than one. This is a valuable asset to have in any field of study or job that they are trained for.
The reason I would suggest that they all be given this 2 year degree, is based on not only the logistical nightmare and expense of letting them choose whatever field they are interested in, but also the problems that would arise with the spaces in the colleges suddenly being flooded with thousands more students all at once. The answer to that is fairly simple.
Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so lets take your average high school community, the only real expense to do this would be the salary for the professors and that would not be noticed by the average taxpayer. As a matter of fact, since high schools are funded through property taxes, In most areas, the cost of the college degree would not be done at a federal level.
and finally, something that may
So other than the critical thinking benefit, how is this going to be of value.
for very little investment we end up with almost all students in the country having an associates degree and our national graduate rates will be huge. But the even greater value to society is that all of these students are now better equipped to pick a field of study and do well in it.
We as a society are going to end up with a much better educated registry of professionals.
so, in short, I now agree with Bernie that free college would be a great benefit to our society.

I'll meet you half way. I think everyone should get an AA if they aren't going to a four year college. On the other hand, they should pay for it

 

[WillReadmore]

The clerk has to quit the job?

Take the Upper Class Down

Of course he will have to, because his former workday will be taken up by class attendance and homework. Who are you trying to kid? You know perfectly well that college is work without pay, for little Mamas' Boys who are afraid to grow up and have no problem living on a teenager's income. I'm getting sick of Netwits pretending to be ignorant of the way things are just because they don't have the guts to admit they live under a screwjob regime.

There can be training that keeps workers employed while allowing them to stay current in their employment sector.

Today, we have rust belt workers who can't get hired even though manufacturing corporations are hiring those who understand modern manufacturing.

That didn't have to happen.

The catch is that it is cheap and easy for corporations to ignore training existing employees while hiring kids coming out of two year and 4 year programs that teach this stuff and who have a proven track record of being able to learn.

Once unions were smashed, manufacturing workers pretty much just lost their voice.

Do you think Trump's Sec of Labor cares about workers?

Aligning With the Preppy-Snob Democrats Was the Unions' Fatal Flaw

By opening up what has been hoarded on government land, Trump can double the wealth available. It's up to the workers to get a bigger share of it this time. The power of numbers can overcome the power of concentrated wealth.

Seriously? You think rust belt manufacturing workers are going to go live in the Oregon desert and raise cattle?

Beyond that, if you want land there, you can buy it. There are large numbers of square miles open for sale, some with working ranches.

So, let me ask you this:

Do you think that land will be given away for free?

And, if the government land in Oregon goes to private ownership, what do you think that will mean for the real estate value of property owned by neighbors? After all, those neighbors really have only one significant asset - their land.

The Idyllic Is for the Idle Rich

Anti-growth restricted raw materials, mineral and oil deposits, will be put into circulation. When the corporations buy or lease them, they will have to offer good wages. Besides, for example, the iron ore on land previously restricted from being used will resupply the steel industry, so workers won't have to move or buy land in order to benefit.

The frontier was never closed, because it is still out there waiting to be developed. The hereditary ruling class hoarded public land to keep real Americans in their place through artificial shortages.

The clerk has to quit the job?

Take the Upper Class Down

Of course he will have to, because his former workday will be taken up by class attendance and homework. Who are you trying to kid? You know perfectly well that college is work without pay, for little Mamas' Boys who are afraid to grow up and have no problem living on a teenager's income. I'm getting sick of Netwits pretending to be ignorant of the way things are just because they don't have the guts to admit they live under a screwjob regime.

There can be training that keeps workers employed while allowing them to stay current in their employment sector.

Today, we have rust belt workers who can't get hired even though manufacturing corporations are hiring those who understand modern manufacturing.

That didn't have to happen.

The catch is that it is cheap and easy for corporations to ignore training existing employees while hiring kids coming out of two year and 4 year programs that teach this stuff and who have a proven track record of being able to learn.

Once unions were smashed, manufacturing workers pretty much just lost their voice.

Do you think Trump's Sec of Labor cares about workers?

Aligning With the Preppy-Snob Democrats Was the Unions' Fatal Flaw

By opening up what has been hoarded on government land, Trump can double the wealth available. It's up to the workers to get a bigger share of it this time. The power of numbers can overcome the power of concentrated wealth.

Seriously? You think rust belt manufacturing workers are going to go live in the Oregon desert and raise cattle?

Beyond that, if you want land there, you can buy it. There are large numbers of square miles open for sale, some with working ranches.

So, let me ask you this:

Do you think that land will be given away for free?

And, if the government land in Oregon goes to private ownership, what do you think that will mean for the real estate value of property owned by neighbors? After all, those neighbors really have only one significant asset - their land.

The Idyllic Is for the Idle Rich

Anti-growth restricted raw materials, mineral and oil deposits, will be put into circulation. When the corporations buy or lease them, they will have to offer good wages. Besides, for example, the iron ore on land previously restricted from being used will resupply the steel industry, so workers won't have to move or buy land in order to benefit.

The frontier was never closed, because it is still out there waiting to be developed. The hereditary ruling class hoarded public land to keep real Americans in their place through artificial shortages.

Natural resources MAY be put into circulation.

I don't know where you got the idea of "good wages".

Land in my state and OR (the states I know best) don't have any land that isn't owned by private interests, the state or the federal government.

Your "artificial shortages" thing would need support. Today, there is no interest in creating artificial shortages.

 

[WillReadmore]

Ever since that nut case Sanders came up with the idea, I have been playing with the thought in my mind. Naturally being a good conservative I was forced to immediately speak out against the idea. mostly because it came from a liberal and because it means more of my tax dollar being spent on "welfare" that had no benefit to me.
However after thinking about it now for some time I see where it actually could be somewhat of a good thing if done properly. And, if done properly I dont think it would cost anywhere near as much as people think.
My idea would be to essentially extend high school by two years. Yes the little tykes get to have their prom and get their high school diploma after meeting the requirements upon graduating the 12th grade, but, they still 2 more years of public education. It could even be optional for them.
One of the problems that I see is that there are too many fields of study to offer two years for free, so Im thinking, what if that two year degree was a liberal arts degree? It is true that one would have a difficult time finding a great paying job with a degree of any level if that degree was liberal arts, but there really is a value in that degree.
It teaches critical thinking, students come away with that degree with a greater ability to look for alternatives to a problem, they have the ability to look at given information and analyze that information with a greater understanding, and as I said the thought process to not only see it in different ways but also to utilize the information in more ways than one. This is a valuable asset to have in any field of study or job that they are trained for.
The reason I would suggest that they all be given this 2 year degree, is based on not only the logistical nightmare and expense of letting them choose whatever field they are interested in, but also the problems that would arise with the spaces in the colleges suddenly being flooded with thousands more students all at once. The answer to that is fairly simple.
Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so lets take your average high school community, the only real expense to do this would be the salary for the professors and that would not be noticed by the average taxpayer. As a matter of fact, since high schools are funded through property taxes, In most areas, the cost of the college degree would not be done at a federal level.
and finally, something that may
So other than the critical thinking benefit, how is this going to be of value.
for very little investment we end up with almost all students in the country having an associates degree and our national graduate rates will be huge. But the even greater value to society is that all of these students are now better equipped to pick a field of study and do well in it.
We as a society are going to end up with a much better educated registry of professionals.
so, in short, I now agree with Bernie that free college would be a great benefit to our society.

I'll meet you half way. I think everyone should get an AA if they aren't going to a four year college. On the other hand, they should pay for it

Germany and other countries are moving away from the idea of educating their citizens only to the degree that the parents can pay for it.

So, those who qualify and are motivated can go to school through 4 years.

THAT is our competition in the post-manufacturing world of competition in high tech, information, automation, innovation, etc.

Again, we have 5% of the brains. China, the EU, etc., have more brains than we have. We do NOT have brains to waste if we plan to maintain our economic, political and standard of living leadership.

More locally, successful new businesses, greater taxable earnings, better public policy decisions, less likelihood of need for welfare/support, etc., come from the ranks of those who have that education.

Putting up roadblocks to that education is a monumental mistake. Let's remember that children born to poverty have the same average brain power as those born to wealth. The difference is whether they get the boot straps to allow movement to the "success" side of the ledger or whether they stay on the side where we pay - in prisons, in welfare, in their lack of capacity to pay taxes in support public services that are supported through taxes, etc.

 

[kaz]

Ever since that nut case Sanders came up with the idea, I have been playing with the thought in my mind. Naturally being a good conservative I was forced to immediately speak out against the idea. mostly because it came from a liberal and because it means more of my tax dollar being spent on "welfare" that had no benefit to me.
However after thinking about it now for some time I see where it actually could be somewhat of a good thing if done properly. And, if done properly I dont think it would cost anywhere near as much as people think.
My idea would be to essentially extend high school by two years. Yes the little tykes get to have their prom and get their high school diploma after meeting the requirements upon graduating the 12th grade, but, they still 2 more years of public education. It could even be optional for them.
One of the problems that I see is that there are too many fields of study to offer two years for free, so Im thinking, what if that two year degree was a liberal arts degree? It is true that one would have a difficult time finding a great paying job with a degree of any level if that degree was liberal arts, but there really is a value in that degree.
It teaches critical thinking, students come away with that degree with a greater ability to look for alternatives to a problem, they have the ability to look at given information and analyze that information with a greater understanding, and as I said the thought process to not only see it in different ways but also to utilize the information in more ways than one. This is a valuable asset to have in any field of study or job that they are trained for.
The reason I would suggest that they all be given this 2 year degree, is based on not only the logistical nightmare and expense of letting them choose whatever field they are interested in, but also the problems that would arise with the spaces in the colleges suddenly being flooded with thousands more students all at once. The answer to that is fairly simple.
Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so lets take your average high school community, the only real expense to do this would be the salary for the professors and that would not be noticed by the average taxpayer. As a matter of fact, since high schools are funded through property taxes, In most areas, the cost of the college degree would not be done at a federal level.
and finally, something that may
So other than the critical thinking benefit, how is this going to be of value.
for very little investment we end up with almost all students in the country having an associates degree and our national graduate rates will be huge. But the even greater value to society is that all of these students are now better equipped to pick a field of study and do well in it.
We as a society are going to end up with a much better educated registry of professionals.
so, in short, I now agree with Bernie that free college would be a great benefit to our society.

I'll meet you half way. I think everyone should get an AA if they aren't going to a four year college. On the other hand, they should pay for it

Germany and other countries are moving away from the idea of educating their citizens only to the degree that the parents can pay for it.

So, those who qualify and are motivated can go to school through 4 years.

THAT is our competition in the post-manufacturing world of competition in high tech, information, automation, innovation, etc.

Again, we have 5% of the brains. China, the EU, etc., have more brains than we have. We do NOT have brains to waste if we plan to maintain our economic, political and standard of living leadership.

More locally, successful new businesses, greater taxable earnings, better public policy decisions, less likelihood of need for welfare/support, etc., come from the ranks of those who have that education.

Putting up roadblocks to that education is a monumental mistake. Let's remember that children born to poverty have the same average brain power as those born to wealth. The difference is whether they get the boot straps to allow movement to the "success" side of the ledger or whether they stay on the side where we pay - in prisons, in welfare, in their lack of capacity to pay taxes in support public services that are supported through taxes, etc.

I somehow got a BS Maryland and two masters degrees (MS, MBA) with almost no help from my parents for my BS and none at all for either masters degree. I worked my ass off to do it. That is what makes successful students, not their educational process already telling them they aren't even responsible for their own future. Too many kids go to college until they flunk out and the money turns off and others take useless job degrees or go to schools they can't afford skipping over cheaper ones they can.

Also, in places like Germany, there are a specified number of slots. They don't just pay for any citizen who wants it to have two more years of partying.

Our government is flooding academia with free money. It's driving up our costs and driving down quality. More of same isn't going to lead to a different result

 

[WillReadmore]

Ever since that nut case Sanders came up with the idea, I have been playing with the thought in my mind. Naturally being a good conservative I was forced to immediately speak out against the idea. mostly because it came from a liberal and because it means more of my tax dollar being spent on "welfare" that had no benefit to me.
However after thinking about it now for some time I see where it actually could be somewhat of a good thing if done properly. And, if done properly I dont think it would cost anywhere near as much as people think.
My idea would be to essentially extend high school by two years. Yes the little tykes get to have their prom and get their high school diploma after meeting the requirements upon graduating the 12th grade, but, they still 2 more years of public education. It could even be optional for them.
One of the problems that I see is that there are too many fields of study to offer two years for free, so Im thinking, what if that two year degree was a liberal arts degree? It is true that one would have a difficult time finding a great paying job with a degree of any level if that degree was liberal arts, but there really is a value in that degree.
It teaches critical thinking, students come away with that degree with a greater ability to look for alternatives to a problem, they have the ability to look at given information and analyze that information with a greater understanding, and as I said the thought process to not only see it in different ways but also to utilize the information in more ways than one. This is a valuable asset to have in any field of study or job that they are trained for.
The reason I would suggest that they all be given this 2 year degree, is based on not only the logistical nightmare and expense of letting them choose whatever field they are interested in, but also the problems that would arise with the spaces in the colleges suddenly being flooded with thousands more students all at once. The answer to that is fairly simple.
Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so lets take your average high school community, the only real expense to do this would be the salary for the professors and that would not be noticed by the average taxpayer. As a matter of fact, since high schools are funded through property taxes, In most areas, the cost of the college degree would not be done at a federal level.
and finally, something that may
So other than the critical thinking benefit, how is this going to be of value.
for very little investment we end up with almost all students in the country having an associates degree and our national graduate rates will be huge. But the even greater value to society is that all of these students are now better equipped to pick a field of study and do well in it.
We as a society are going to end up with a much better educated registry of professionals.
so, in short, I now agree with Bernie that free college would be a great benefit to our society.

I'll meet you half way. I think everyone should get an AA if they aren't going to a four year college. On the other hand, they should pay for it

Germany and other countries are moving away from the idea of educating their citizens only to the degree that the parents can pay for it.

So, those who qualify and are motivated can go to school through 4 years.

THAT is our competition in the post-manufacturing world of competition in high tech, information, automation, innovation, etc.

Again, we have 5% of the brains. China, the EU, etc., have more brains than we have. We do NOT have brains to waste if we plan to maintain our economic, political and standard of living leadership.

More locally, successful new businesses, greater taxable earnings, better public policy decisions, less likelihood of need for welfare/support, etc., come from the ranks of those who have that education.

Putting up roadblocks to that education is a monumental mistake. Let's remember that children born to poverty have the same average brain power as those born to wealth. The difference is whether they get the boot straps to allow movement to the "success" side of the ledger or whether they stay on the side where we pay - in prisons, in welfare, in their lack of capacity to pay taxes in support public services that are supported through taxes, etc.

I somehow got a BS Maryland and two masters degrees (MS, MBA) with almost no help from my parents for my BS and none at all for either masters degree. I worked my ass off to do it. That is what makes successful students, not their educational process already telling them they aren't even responsible for their own future. Too many kids go to college until they flunk out and the money turns off and others take useless job degrees or go to schools they can't afford skipping over cheaper ones they can.

Also, in places like Germany, there are a specified number of slots. They don't just pay for any citizen who wants it to have two more years of partying.

Our government is flooding academia with free money. It's driving up our costs and driving down quality. More of same isn't going to lead to a different result

I got through totally on my own. But, I had to take time out to focus on work. And, today costs have gone up to the point where I doubt that is possible. New high school graduates don't make the kind of money required to go to college, and they don't have the time to do it, either.

But, I don't want to trivialize this topic. It's not like there is only one problem. And, my own case is not necessarily representative.

I just want the objective to be that we educate every brain to its potential as long as there is intent (or whatever one might want to call it).

My daughter has spent time counseling high school students from areas of poverty on college direction. She says that families and students totally check out when they see the dollar signs. They don't have the resources to backstop loans - in fact, in many communities that kind of debt is a precursor to catastrophe. They don't get what happens after college success, as nothing is guaranteed, obviously. They recognize that getting through isn't guaranteed, and thus the kid could be no better off, but with huge debt for having tried. They have no way to support the incidentals (stuff as simple as the school closing for thanksgiving, yet having no money to go home, rent a hotel, etc.).

The cost DOES block capable kids from going to college.

 

[kaz]

Ever since that nut case Sanders came up with the idea, I have been playing with the thought in my mind. Naturally being a good conservative I was forced to immediately speak out against the idea. mostly because it came from a liberal and because it means more of my tax dollar being spent on "welfare" that had no benefit to me.
However after thinking about it now for some time I see where it actually could be somewhat of a good thing if done properly. And, if done properly I dont think it would cost anywhere near as much as people think.
My idea would be to essentially extend high school by two years. Yes the little tykes get to have their prom and get their high school diploma after meeting the requirements upon graduating the 12th grade, but, they still 2 more years of public education. It could even be optional for them.
One of the problems that I see is that there are too many fields of study to offer two years for free, so Im thinking, what if that two year degree was a liberal arts degree? It is true that one would have a difficult time finding a great paying job with a degree of any level if that degree was liberal arts, but there really is a value in that degree.
It teaches critical thinking, students come away with that degree with a greater ability to look for alternatives to a problem, they have the ability to look at given information and analyze that information with a greater understanding, and as I said the thought process to not only see it in different ways but also to utilize the information in more ways than one. This is a valuable asset to have in any field of study or job that they are trained for.
The reason I would suggest that they all be given this 2 year degree, is based on not only the logistical nightmare and expense of letting them choose whatever field they are interested in, but also the problems that would arise with the spaces in the colleges suddenly being flooded with thousands more students all at once. The answer to that is fairly simple.
Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so lets take your average high school community, the only real expense to do this would be the salary for the professors and that would not be noticed by the average taxpayer. As a matter of fact, since high schools are funded through property taxes, In most areas, the cost of the college degree would not be done at a federal level.
and finally, something that may
So other than the critical thinking benefit, how is this going to be of value.
for very little investment we end up with almost all students in the country having an associates degree and our national graduate rates will be huge. But the even greater value to society is that all of these students are now better equipped to pick a field of study and do well in it.
We as a society are going to end up with a much better educated registry of professionals.
so, in short, I now agree with Bernie that free college would be a great benefit to our society.

I'll meet you half way. I think everyone should get an AA if they aren't going to a four year college. On the other hand, they should pay for it

Germany and other countries are moving away from the idea of educating their citizens only to the degree that the parents can pay for it.

So, those who qualify and are motivated can go to school through 4 years.

THAT is our competition in the post-manufacturing world of competition in high tech, information, automation, innovation, etc.

Again, we have 5% of the brains. China, the EU, etc., have more brains than we have. We do NOT have brains to waste if we plan to maintain our economic, political and standard of living leadership.

More locally, successful new businesses, greater taxable earnings, better public policy decisions, less likelihood of need for welfare/support, etc., come from the ranks of those who have that education.

Putting up roadblocks to that education is a monumental mistake. Let's remember that children born to poverty have the same average brain power as those born to wealth. The difference is whether they get the boot straps to allow movement to the "success" side of the ledger or whether they stay on the side where we pay - in prisons, in welfare, in their lack of capacity to pay taxes in support public services that are supported through taxes, etc.

I somehow got a BS Maryland and two masters degrees (MS, MBA) with almost no help from my parents for my BS and none at all for either masters degree. I worked my ass off to do it. That is what makes successful students, not their educational process already telling them they aren't even responsible for their own future. Too many kids go to college until they flunk out and the money turns off and others take useless job degrees or go to schools they can't afford skipping over cheaper ones they can.

Also, in places like Germany, there are a specified number of slots. They don't just pay for any citizen who wants it to have two more years of partying.

Our government is flooding academia with free money. It's driving up our costs and driving down quality. More of same isn't going to lead to a different result

I got through totally on my own. But, I had to take time out to focus on work. And, today costs have gone up to the point where I doubt that is possible. New high school graduates don't make the kind of money required to go to college, and they don't have the time to do it, either.

But, I don't want to trivialize this topic. It's not like there is only one problem. And, my own case is not necessarily representative.

I just want the objective to be that we educate every brain to its potential as long as there is intent (or whatever one might want to call it).

My daughter has spent time counseling high school students from areas of poverty on college direction. She says that families and students totally check out when they see the dollar signs. They don't have the resources to backstop loans - in fact, in many communities that kind of debt is a precursor to catastrophe. They don't get what happens after college success, as nothing is guaranteed, obviously. They recognize that getting through isn't guaranteed, and thus the kid could be no better off, but with huge debt for having tried. They have no way to support the incidentals (stuff as simple as the school closing for thanksgiving, yet having no money to go home, rent a hotel, etc.).

The cost DOES block capable kids from going to college.

That's my point about which college you pick. There are plenty that are affordable. If you want to go to Princeton, government shouldn't pay for that

 

[danielpalos]

Ever since that nut case Sanders came up with the idea, I have been playing with the thought in my mind. Naturally being a good conservative I was forced to immediately speak out against the idea. mostly because it came from a liberal and because it means more of my tax dollar being spent on "welfare" that had no benefit to me.
However after thinking about it now for some time I see where it actually could be somewhat of a good thing if done properly. And, if done properly I dont think it would cost anywhere near as much as people think.
My idea would be to essentially extend high school by two years. Yes the little tykes get to have their prom and get their high school diploma after meeting the requirements upon graduating the 12th grade, but, they still 2 more years of public education. It could even be optional for them.
One of the problems that I see is that there are too many fields of study to offer two years for free, so Im thinking, what if that two year degree was a liberal arts degree? It is true that one would have a difficult time finding a great paying job with a degree of any level if that degree was liberal arts, but there really is a value in that degree.
It teaches critical thinking, students come away with that degree with a greater ability to look for alternatives to a problem, they have the ability to look at given information and analyze that information with a greater understanding, and as I said the thought process to not only see it in different ways but also to utilize the information in more ways than one. This is a valuable asset to have in any field of study or job that they are trained for.
The reason I would suggest that they all be given this 2 year degree, is based on not only the logistical nightmare and expense of letting them choose whatever field they are interested in, but also the problems that would arise with the spaces in the colleges suddenly being flooded with thousands more students all at once. The answer to that is fairly simple.
Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so lets take your average high school community, the only real expense to do this would be the salary for the professors and that would not be noticed by the average taxpayer. As a matter of fact, since high schools are funded through property taxes, In most areas, the cost of the college degree would not be done at a federal level.
and finally, something that may
So other than the critical thinking benefit, how is this going to be of value.
for very little investment we end up with almost all students in the country having an associates degree and our national graduate rates will be huge. But the even greater value to society is that all of these students are now better equipped to pick a field of study and do well in it.
We as a society are going to end up with a much better educated registry of professionals.
so, in short, I now agree with Bernie that free college would be a great benefit to our society.

a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage and fourteen dollars an hour for simply being unemployed in an at-will employment State is more efficient and cost effective.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Take the Upper Class Down

Of course he will have to, because his former workday will be taken up by class attendance and homework. Who are you trying to kid? You know perfectly well that college is work without pay, for little Mamas' Boys who are afraid to grow up and have no problem living on a teenager's income. I'm getting sick of Netwits pretending to be ignorant of the way things are just because they don't have the guts to admit they live under a screwjob regime.

There can be training that keeps workers employed while allowing them to stay current in their employment sector.

Today, we have rust belt workers who can't get hired even though manufacturing corporations are hiring those who understand modern manufacturing.

That didn't have to happen.

The catch is that it is cheap and easy for corporations to ignore training existing employees while hiring kids coming out of two year and 4 year programs that teach this stuff and who have a proven track record of being able to learn.

Once unions were smashed, manufacturing workers pretty much just lost their voice.

Do you think Trump's Sec of Labor cares about workers?

Aligning With the Preppy-Snob Democrats Was the Unions' Fatal Flaw

By opening up what has been hoarded on government land, Trump can double the wealth available. It's up to the workers to get a bigger share of it this time. The power of numbers can overcome the power of concentrated wealth.

Seriously? You think rust belt manufacturing workers are going to go live in the Oregon desert and raise cattle?

Beyond that, if you want land there, you can buy it. There are large numbers of square miles open for sale, some with working ranches.

So, let me ask you this:

Do you think that land will be given away for free?

And, if the government land in Oregon goes to private ownership, what do you think that will mean for the real estate value of property owned by neighbors? After all, those neighbors really have only one significant asset - their land.

The Idyllic Is for the Idle Rich

Anti-growth restricted raw materials, mineral and oil deposits, will be put into circulation. When the corporations buy or lease them, they will have to offer good wages. Besides, for example, the iron ore on land previously restricted from being used will resupply the steel industry, so workers won't have to move or buy land in order to benefit.

The frontier was never closed, because it is still out there waiting to be developed. The hereditary ruling class hoarded public land to keep real Americans in their place through artificial shortages.

Take the Upper Class Down

Of course he will have to, because his former workday will be taken up by class attendance and homework. Who are you trying to kid? You know perfectly well that college is work without pay, for little Mamas' Boys who are afraid to grow up and have no problem living on a teenager's income. I'm getting sick of Netwits pretending to be ignorant of the way things are just because they don't have the guts to admit they live under a screwjob regime.

There can be training that keeps workers employed while allowing them to stay current in their employment sector.

Today, we have rust belt workers who can't get hired even though manufacturing corporations are hiring those who understand modern manufacturing.

That didn't have to happen.

The catch is that it is cheap and easy for corporations to ignore training existing employees while hiring kids coming out of two year and 4 year programs that teach this stuff and who have a proven track record of being able to learn.

Once unions were smashed, manufacturing workers pretty much just lost their voice.

Do you think Trump's Sec of Labor cares about workers?

Aligning With the Preppy-Snob Democrats Was the Unions' Fatal Flaw

By opening up what has been hoarded on government land, Trump can double the wealth available. It's up to the workers to get a bigger share of it this time. The power of numbers can overcome the power of concentrated wealth.

Seriously? You think rust belt manufacturing workers are going to go live in the Oregon desert and raise cattle?

Beyond that, if you want land there, you can buy it. There are large numbers of square miles open for sale, some with working ranches.

So, let me ask you this:

Do you think that land will be given away for free?

And, if the government land in Oregon goes to private ownership, what do you think that will mean for the real estate value of property owned by neighbors? After all, those neighbors really have only one significant asset - their land.

The Idyllic Is for the Idle Rich

Anti-growth restricted raw materials, mineral and oil deposits, will be put into circulation. When the corporations buy or lease them, they will have to offer good wages. Besides, for example, the iron ore on land previously restricted from being used will resupply the steel industry, so workers won't have to move or buy land in order to benefit.

The frontier was never closed, because it is still out there waiting to be developed. The hereditary ruling class hoarded public land to keep real Americans in their place through artificial shortages.

Natural resources MAY be put into circulation.



Land in my state and OR (the states I know best) don't have any land that isn't owned by private interests, the state or the federal government.

Your "artificial shortages" thing would need support. Today, there is no interest in creating artificial shortages.

Status Quo Stagnancy

Trump will sell or lease the land owned by the feds. The cartel that privately owns resources and also directs the Bureau of Land Management has created artificial scarcity in order to jack up prices. Limiting supply skewers the price effect of the supply/demand ratio. A "free market" really means that those who control the market are free to do whatever they want.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Ever since that nut case Sanders came up with the idea, I have been playing with the thought in my mind. Naturally being a good conservative I was forced to immediately speak out against the idea. mostly because it came from a liberal and because it means more of my tax dollar being spent on "welfare" that had no benefit to me.
However after thinking about it now for some time I see where it actually could be somewhat of a good thing if done properly. And, if done properly I dont think it would cost anywhere near as much as people think.
My idea would be to essentially extend high school by two years. Yes the little tykes get to have their prom and get their high school diploma after meeting the requirements upon graduating the 12th grade, but, they still 2 more years of public education. It could even be optional for them.
One of the problems that I see is that there are too many fields of study to offer two years for free, so Im thinking, what if that two year degree was a liberal arts degree? It is true that one would have a difficult time finding a great paying job with a degree of any level if that degree was liberal arts, but there really is a value in that degree.
It teaches critical thinking, students come away with that degree with a greater ability to look for alternatives to a problem, they have the ability to look at given information and analyze that information with a greater understanding, and as I said the thought process to not only see it in different ways but also to utilize the information in more ways than one. This is a valuable asset to have in any field of study or job that they are trained for.
The reason I would suggest that they all be given this 2 year degree, is based on not only the logistical nightmare and expense of letting them choose whatever field they are interested in, but also the problems that would arise with the spaces in the colleges suddenly being flooded with thousands more students all at once. The answer to that is fairly simple.
Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so lets take your average high school community, the only real expense to do this would be the salary for the professors and that would not be noticed by the average taxpayer. As a matter of fact, since high schools are funded through property taxes, In most areas, the cost of the college degree would not be done at a federal level.
and finally, something that may
So other than the critical thinking benefit, how is this going to be of value.
for very little investment we end up with almost all students in the country having an associates degree and our national graduate rates will be huge. But the even greater value to society is that all of these students are now better equipped to pick a field of study and do well in it.
We as a society are going to end up with a much better educated registry of professionals.
so, in short, I now agree with Bernie that free college would be a great benefit to our society.

I'll meet you half way. I think everyone should get an AA if they aren't going to a four year college. On the other hand, they should pay for it

Germany and other countries are moving away from the idea of educating their citizens only to the degree that the parents can pay for it.

So, those who qualify and are motivated can go to school through 4 years.

THAT is our competition in the post-manufacturing world of competition in high tech, information, automation, innovation, etc.

Again, we have 5% of the brains. China, the EU, etc., have more brains than we have. We do NOT have brains to waste if we plan to maintain our economic, political and standard of living leadership.

More locally, successful new businesses, greater taxable earnings, better public policy decisions, less likelihood of need for welfare/support, etc., come from the ranks of those who have that education.

Putting up roadblocks to that education is a monumental mistake. Let's remember that children born to poverty have the same average brain power as those born to wealth. The difference is whether they get the boot straps to allow movement to the "success" side of the ledger or whether they stay on the side where we pay - in prisons, in welfare, in their lack of capacity to pay taxes in support public services that are supported through taxes, etc.

I somehow got a BS Maryland and two masters degrees (MS, MBA) with almost no help from my parents for my BS and none at all for either masters degree. I worked my ass off to do it. That is what makes successful students, not their educational process already telling them they aren't even responsible for their own future. Too many kids go to college until they flunk out and the money turns off and others take useless job degrees or go to schools they can't afford skipping over cheaper ones they can.

Also, in places like Germany, there are a specified number of slots. They don't just pay for any citizen who wants it to have two more years of partying.

Our government is flooding academia with free money. It's driving up our costs and driving down quality. More of same isn't going to lead to a different result

I got through totally on my own. But, I had to take time out to focus on work. And, today costs have gone up to the point where I doubt that is possible. New high school graduates don't make the kind of money required to go to college, and they don't have the time to do it, either.

But, I don't want to trivialize this topic. It's not like there is only one problem. And, my own case is not necessarily representative.

I just want the objective to be that we educate every brain to its potential as long as there is intent (or whatever one might want to call it).

My daughter has spent time counseling high school students from areas of poverty on college direction. She says that families and students totally check out when they see the dollar signs. They don't have the resources to backstop loans - in fact, in many communities that kind of debt is a precursor to catastrophe. They don't get what happens after college success, as nothing is guaranteed, obviously. They recognize that getting through isn't guaranteed, and thus the kid could be no better off, but with huge debt for having tried. They have no way to support the incidentals (stuff as simple as the school closing for thanksgiving, yet having no money to go home, rent a hotel, etc.).

The cost DOES block capable kids from going to college.

College Is for Coolies

Those with brains owe nothing to business and society. Owing means being paid in advance, which they aren't. Not having to pay by getting free tuition doesn't count as being paid. Give only free tuition to the Blue Chip athletes and make them live on part-time jobs like teenagers afraid to grow up, and the colleges will be able to recruit very few of them.

 

[WillReadmore]

Ever since that nut case Sanders came up with the idea, I have been playing with the thought in my mind. Naturally being a good conservative I was forced to immediately speak out against the idea. mostly because it came from a liberal and because it means more of my tax dollar being spent on "welfare" that had no benefit to me.
However after thinking about it now for some time I see where it actually could be somewhat of a good thing if done properly. And, if done properly I dont think it would cost anywhere near as much as people think.
My idea would be to essentially extend high school by two years. Yes the little tykes get to have their prom and get their high school diploma after meeting the requirements upon graduating the 12th grade, but, they still 2 more years of public education. It could even be optional for them.
One of the problems that I see is that there are too many fields of study to offer two years for free, so Im thinking, what if that two year degree was a liberal arts degree? It is true that one would have a difficult time finding a great paying job with a degree of any level if that degree was liberal arts, but there really is a value in that degree.
It teaches critical thinking, students come away with that degree with a greater ability to look for alternatives to a problem, they have the ability to look at given information and analyze that information with a greater understanding, and as I said the thought process to not only see it in different ways but also to utilize the information in more ways than one. This is a valuable asset to have in any field of study or job that they are trained for.
The reason I would suggest that they all be given this 2 year degree, is based on not only the logistical nightmare and expense of letting them choose whatever field they are interested in, but also the problems that would arise with the spaces in the colleges suddenly being flooded with thousands more students all at once. The answer to that is fairly simple.
Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so lets take your average high school community, the only real expense to do this would be the salary for the professors and that would not be noticed by the average taxpayer. As a matter of fact, since high schools are funded through property taxes, In most areas, the cost of the college degree would not be done at a federal level.
and finally, something that may
So other than the critical thinking benefit, how is this going to be of value.
for very little investment we end up with almost all students in the country having an associates degree and our national graduate rates will be huge. But the even greater value to society is that all of these students are now better equipped to pick a field of study and do well in it.
We as a society are going to end up with a much better educated registry of professionals.
so, in short, I now agree with Bernie that free college would be a great benefit to our society.

I'll meet you half way. I think everyone should get an AA if they aren't going to a four year college. On the other hand, they should pay for it

Germany and other countries are moving away from the idea of educating their citizens only to the degree that the parents can pay for it.

So, those who qualify and are motivated can go to school through 4 years.

THAT is our competition in the post-manufacturing world of competition in high tech, information, automation, innovation, etc.

Again, we have 5% of the brains. China, the EU, etc., have more brains than we have. We do NOT have brains to waste if we plan to maintain our economic, political and standard of living leadership.

More locally, successful new businesses, greater taxable earnings, better public policy decisions, less likelihood of need for welfare/support, etc., come from the ranks of those who have that education.

Putting up roadblocks to that education is a monumental mistake. Let's remember that children born to poverty have the same average brain power as those born to wealth. The difference is whether they get the boot straps to allow movement to the "success" side of the ledger or whether they stay on the side where we pay - in prisons, in welfare, in their lack of capacity to pay taxes in support public services that are supported through taxes, etc.

I somehow got a BS Maryland and two masters degrees (MS, MBA) with almost no help from my parents for my BS and none at all for either masters degree. I worked my ass off to do it. That is what makes successful students, not their educational process already telling them they aren't even responsible for their own future. Too many kids go to college until they flunk out and the money turns off and others take useless job degrees or go to schools they can't afford skipping over cheaper ones they can.

Also, in places like Germany, there are a specified number of slots. They don't just pay for any citizen who wants it to have two more years of partying.

Our government is flooding academia with free money. It's driving up our costs and driving down quality. More of same isn't going to lead to a different result

I got through totally on my own. But, I had to take time out to focus on work. And, today costs have gone up to the point where I doubt that is possible. New high school graduates don't make the kind of money required to go to college, and they don't have the time to do it, either.

But, I don't want to trivialize this topic. It's not like there is only one problem. And, my own case is not necessarily representative.

I just want the objective to be that we educate every brain to its potential as long as there is intent (or whatever one might want to call it).

My daughter has spent time counseling high school students from areas of poverty on college direction. She says that families and students totally check out when they see the dollar signs. They don't have the resources to backstop loans - in fact, in many communities that kind of debt is a precursor to catastrophe. They don't get what happens after college success, as nothing is guaranteed, obviously. They recognize that getting through isn't guaranteed, and thus the kid could be no better off, but with huge debt for having tried. They have no way to support the incidentals (stuff as simple as the school closing for thanksgiving, yet having no money to go home, rent a hotel, etc.).

The cost DOES block capable kids from going to college.

College Is for Coolies

Those with brains owe nothing to business and society. Owing means being paid in advance, which they aren't. Not having to pay by getting free tuition doesn't count as being paid. Give only free tuition to the Blue Chip athletes and make them live on part-time jobs like teenagers afraid to grow up, and the colleges will be able to recruit very few of them.

I'm not sure I understand your post.

So, just let me say the following without you considering it a rebuttal, as perhaps you agree:

I believe we all have a debt to our society - a society that has provided such a fabulous standard of living, such safety, and such an amazing wealth of opportunity for those willing to prepare themselves.

Try walking through one of our national cemeteries and shouting "FU".

In all seriousness, anyone who can do that really should just get the hell out of America.

For the rest of us, we need to make sure we're ready to compete with the world, ready to support our families and maintain this society for ourselves and those to follow. That requires education - vocational, academic, on the job, whatever. And, we need to make sure that is available to our kids, as they don't yet have the capacity to pay for it on their own.

 

[Spare_change]

Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so

that is now being done here in NC

It will be interesting to see the progress in that a few years from now. Im pretty sure that the results will be worth the small investment made. It might even work toward lowering the poverty rate in certain areas.
One thing for sure, If I owned a business and was looking for a place to build another plant, or if I was looking for a place to start a new business with a strong work force to pull from, I would seriously look at somewhere that all of the population had a degree of some sort. Yes I would expect to pay a higher wage but I think that the quality of the worker would be higher and basically worth that investment.

Small investment? I don't think so ....

You've increased the "high school" population by 14% -increased building needs by 14% - increased teaching costs by 14% - increased the support costs (lunch, transportation, etc.) by 14% ... AND forced parents to support their children for an additional 2 years. Not only will these "children" not have jobs, and be contributing to society, they will be a load on society.

Cheap? Not hardly ....

 

[WillReadmore]

Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so

that is now being done here in NC

It will be interesting to see the progress in that a few years from now. Im pretty sure that the results will be worth the small investment made. It might even work toward lowering the poverty rate in certain areas.
One thing for sure, If I owned a business and was looking for a place to build another plant, or if I was looking for a place to start a new business with a strong work force to pull from, I would seriously look at somewhere that all of the population had a degree of some sort. Yes I would expect to pay a higher wage but I think that the quality of the worker would be higher and basically worth that investment.

Small investment? I don't think so ....

You've increased the "high school" population by 14% -increased building needs by 14% - increased teaching costs by 14% - increased the support costs (lunch, transportation, etc.) by 14% ... AND forced parents to support their children for an additional 2 years. Not only will these "children" not have jobs, and be contributing to society, they will be a load on society.

Cheap? Not hardly ....

Please cite your 14% claim.

 

[Maryland Patriot]

Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so

that is now being done here in NC

It will be interesting to see the progress in that a few years from now. Im pretty sure that the results will be worth the small investment made. It might even work toward lowering the poverty rate in certain areas.
One thing for sure, If I owned a business and was looking for a place to build another plant, or if I was looking for a place to start a new business with a strong work force to pull from, I would seriously look at somewhere that all of the population had a degree of some sort. Yes I would expect to pay a higher wage but I think that the quality of the worker would be higher and basically worth that investment.

Small investment? I don't think so ....

You've increased the "high school" population by 14% -increased building needs by 14% - increased teaching costs by 14% - increased the support costs (lunch, transportation, etc.) by 14% ... AND forced parents to support their children for an additional 2 years. Not only will these "children" not have jobs, and be contributing to society, they will be a load on society.

Cheap? Not hardly ....

what is the cost to the nation over the life of that student? lower earnings equates to lower tax revenue, public assistance in some cases could be avoided, an educated society produces more innovations, more quality products, better communication and reasoning skills that could be used when dealing with foreign leaders, education increased the chance of compassion for others, it brings with it problem solving skills that can be beneficial to a society.
with the cost of college, the stagnant minimum wages, the lower end jobs that used to be filled with first and second term college students are now being filled with illegals (at least in the Annapolis area) The cost of giving them the education will be offset by the contributions they make for the 40 to 50 years working.
I was 100% against the idea of free education, but with a couple months of researching not only the income difference between the college degree and the high school degree, and looking at other countries that have a higher rate of education than the U.S, I now can put all the numbers together and see where it will cost society less to educate them now than to have them working low end jobs their entire life.
The numbers dont lie. It will save the country quite a bit of money in the future.

 

[Spare_change]

Since they will all be studying for the same degree, we basically continue high school for an additional 2 years. liberal arts has no labs to worry about setting up, taking up space and costing the taxpayer out the back side so the high school classrooms should be sufficient.
The last issue is transportation, if the 2 year degree is done with classes at the local college and it is mandatory (unless a waiver has been issued) we have an obligation to provide transportation for the students. Now if the 2 additional years of school is done at the high school, the bus services that are being used for the students for high school will work for the ones that have reached the 13th and 14th year of school. so

that is now being done here in NC

It will be interesting to see the progress in that a few years from now. Im pretty sure that the results will be worth the small investment made. It might even work toward lowering the poverty rate in certain areas.
One thing for sure, If I owned a business and was looking for a place to build another plant, or if I was looking for a place to start a new business with a strong work force to pull from, I would seriously look at somewhere that all of the population had a degree of some sort. Yes I would expect to pay a higher wage but I think that the quality of the worker would be higher and basically worth that investment.

Small investment? I don't think so ....

You've increased the "high school" population by 14% -increased building needs by 14% - increased teaching costs by 14% - increased the support costs (lunch, transportation, etc.) by 14% ... AND forced parents to support their children for an additional 2 years. Not only will these "children" not have jobs, and be contributing to society, they will be a load on society.

Cheap? Not hardly ....

what is the cost to the nation over the life of that student? lower earnings equates to lower tax revenue, public assistance in some cases could be avoided, an educated society produces more innovations, more quality products, better communication and reasoning skills that could be used when dealing with foreign leaders, education increased the chance of compassion for others, it brings with it problem solving skills that can be beneficial to a society.
with the cost of college, the stagnant minimum wages, the lower end jobs that used to be filled with first and second term college students are now being filled with illegals (at least in the Annapolis area) The cost of giving them the education will be offset by the contributions they make for the 40 to 50 years working.
I was 100% against the idea of free education, but with a couple months of researching not only the income difference between the college degree and the high school degree, and looking at other countries that have a higher rate of education than the U.S, I now can put all the numbers together and see where it will cost society less to educate them now than to have them working low end jobs their entire life.
The numbers dont lie. It will save the country quite a bit of money in the future.

Of course, that is all based on the presumption that an increase in the level of education, within our current system, won't serve the same purpose. While there may be SOME merit to what you say, I would contend that an overhaul of the current K-12 system would accomplish just as much, and at a far less cost.

 

[kaz]

I'll meet you half way. I think everyone should get an AA if they aren't going to a four year college. On the other hand, they should pay for it

Germany and other countries are moving away from the idea of educating their citizens only to the degree that the parents can pay for it.

So, those who qualify and are motivated can go to school through 4 years.

THAT is our competition in the post-manufacturing world of competition in high tech, information, automation, innovation, etc.

Again, we have 5% of the brains. China, the EU, etc., have more brains than we have. We do NOT have brains to waste if we plan to maintain our economic, political and standard of living leadership.

More locally, successful new businesses, greater taxable earnings, better public policy decisions, less likelihood of need for welfare/support, etc., come from the ranks of those who have that education.

Putting up roadblocks to that education is a monumental mistake. Let's remember that children born to poverty have the same average brain power as those born to wealth. The difference is whether they get the boot straps to allow movement to the "success" side of the ledger or whether they stay on the side where we pay - in prisons, in welfare, in their lack of capacity to pay taxes in support public services that are supported through taxes, etc.

I somehow got a BS Maryland and two masters degrees (MS, MBA) with almost no help from my parents for my BS and none at all for either masters degree. I worked my ass off to do it. That is what makes successful students, not their educational process already telling them they aren't even responsible for their own future. Too many kids go to college until they flunk out and the money turns off and others take useless job degrees or go to schools they can't afford skipping over cheaper ones they can.

Also, in places like Germany, there are a specified number of slots. They don't just pay for any citizen who wants it to have two more years of partying.

Our government is flooding academia with free money. It's driving up our costs and driving down quality. More of same isn't going to lead to a different result

I got through totally on my own. But, I had to take time out to focus on work. And, today costs have gone up to the point where I doubt that is possible. New high school graduates don't make the kind of money required to go to college, and they don't have the time to do it, either.

But, I don't want to trivialize this topic. It's not like there is only one problem. And, my own case is not necessarily representative.

I just want the objective to be that we educate every brain to its potential as long as there is intent (or whatever one might want to call it).

My daughter has spent time counseling high school students from areas of poverty on college direction. She says that families and students totally check out when they see the dollar signs. They don't have the resources to backstop loans - in fact, in many communities that kind of debt is a precursor to catastrophe. They don't get what happens after college success, as nothing is guaranteed, obviously. They recognize that getting through isn't guaranteed, and thus the kid could be no better off, but with huge debt for having tried. They have no way to support the incidentals (stuff as simple as the school closing for thanksgiving, yet having no money to go home, rent a hotel, etc.).

The cost DOES block capable kids from going to college.

College Is for Coolies

Those with brains owe nothing to business and society. Owing means being paid in advance, which they aren't. Not having to pay by getting free tuition doesn't count as being paid. Give only free tuition to the Blue Chip athletes and make them live on part-time jobs like teenagers afraid to grow up, and the colleges will be able to recruit very few of them.

I'm not sure I understand your post.

So, just let me say the following without you considering it a rebuttal, as perhaps you agree:

I believe we all have a debt to our society - a society that has provided such a fabulous standard of living, such safety, and such an amazing wealth of opportunity for those willing to prepare themselves.

Try walking through one of our national cemeteries and shouting "FU".

In all seriousness, anyone who can do that really should just get the hell out of America.

For the rest of us, we need to make sure we're ready to compete with the world, ready to support our families and maintain this society for ourselves and those to follow. That requires education - vocational, academic, on the job, whatever. And, we need to make sure that is available to our kids, as they don't yet have the capacity to pay for it on their own.

We don't owe "a debt to our society." As a member of society we should contribute to it since as you pointed out society provides many benefits to us. But if everyone owes society, I think the connotation of that leads to nothing but bad results. Like that government decides it is society (it isn't) and uses force to collect that "debt" from you. Your contribution to society should be voluntary. Then again what you get from society should be voluntary as well and that isn't government either.

This isn't a support or opposition to your post, just how I would put it

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'll meet you half way. I think everyone should get an AA if they aren't going to a four year college. On the other hand, they should pay for it

Germany and other countries are moving away from the idea of educating their citizens only to the degree that the parents can pay for it.

So, those who qualify and are motivated can go to school through 4 years.

THAT is our competition in the post-manufacturing world of competition in high tech, information, automation, innovation, etc.

Again, we have 5% of the brains. China, the EU, etc., have more brains than we have. We do NOT have brains to waste if we plan to maintain our economic, political and standard of living leadership.

More locally, successful new businesses, greater taxable earnings, better public policy decisions, less likelihood of need for welfare/support, etc., come from the ranks of those who have that education.

Putting up roadblocks to that education is a monumental mistake. Let's remember that children born to poverty have the same average brain power as those born to wealth. The difference is whether they get the boot straps to allow movement to the "success" side of the ledger or whether they stay on the side where we pay - in prisons, in welfare, in their lack of capacity to pay taxes in support public services that are supported through taxes, etc.

I somehow got a BS Maryland and two masters degrees (MS, MBA) with almost no help from my parents for my BS and none at all for either masters degree. I worked my ass off to do it. That is what makes successful students, not their educational process already telling them they aren't even responsible for their own future. Too many kids go to college until they flunk out and the money turns off and others take useless job degrees or go to schools they can't afford skipping over cheaper ones they can.

Also, in places like Germany, there are a specified number of slots. They don't just pay for any citizen who wants it to have two more years of partying.

Our government is flooding academia with free money. It's driving up our costs and driving down quality. More of same isn't going to lead to a different result

I got through totally on my own. But, I had to take time out to focus on work. And, today costs have gone up to the point where I doubt that is possible. New high school graduates don't make the kind of money required to go to college, and they don't have the time to do it, either.

But, I don't want to trivialize this topic. It's not like there is only one problem. And, my own case is not necessarily representative.

I just want the objective to be that we educate every brain to its potential as long as there is intent (or whatever one might want to call it).

My daughter has spent time counseling high school students from areas of poverty on college direction. She says that families and students totally check out when they see the dollar signs. They don't have the resources to backstop loans - in fact, in many communities that kind of debt is a precursor to catastrophe. They don't get what happens after college success, as nothing is guaranteed, obviously. They recognize that getting through isn't guaranteed, and thus the kid could be no better off, but with huge debt for having tried. They have no way to support the incidentals (stuff as simple as the school closing for thanksgiving, yet having no money to go home, rent a hotel, etc.).

The cost DOES block capable kids from going to college.

College Is for Coolies

Those with brains owe nothing to business and society. Owing means being paid in advance, which they aren't. Not having to pay by getting free tuition doesn't count as being paid. Give only free tuition to the Blue Chip athletes and make them live on part-time jobs like teenagers afraid to grow up, and the colleges will be able to recruit very few of them.

I'm not sure I understand your post.

So, just let me say the following without you considering it a rebuttal, as perhaps you agree:

I believe we all have a debt to our society - a society that has provided such a fabulous standard of living, such safety, and such an amazing wealth of opportunity for those willing to prepare themselves.





For the rest of us, we need to make sure we're ready to compete with the world, ready to support our families and maintain this society for ourselves and those to follow. That requires education - vocational, academic, on the job, whatever. And, we need to make sure that is available to our kids, as they don't yet have the capacity to pay for it on their own.

Letting the Seeds Die of Thirst

Society owes its standard of living to a few talented people. In order to keep that coming, the most valuable human resources must be treated the way talented athletes are treated from childhood on. And yes, I do mean peer-group popularity and getting first pick on the most attractive girls, etc. Sacrifice has no merit; it is insulting to ask that of people you want to freeload off. If you don't pay the few who belong in college a high student salary, you get what you pay for.

The reason you never got the cure for cancer is that you expect the highly intelligent to sacrifice their youth so that ungrateful parasites can live past middle age. An oncologist doesn't earn a living until he is 30 years old; that is a non-starter. If I were a billionaire, I wouldn't give a dime to the American Cancer Society until they start paying bright high-school grads upfront to study it. That whole charity wastes money on burnt-out escapist nerds who have produced very little.

 

[danielpalos]

unemployment compensation simply for being unemployed in our at-will employment States, solves this social dilemma.