CDZ Should college education be available for free to anyone who qualifies academically?

[320 Years of History]

.....to your assertion that "it can't be free."
...

Nothing is "free." You should know that.

Tell that to my kids. You can be sure that every bit of education they received was and remains free to them.

None of it was free. Is this really so hard to understand?

What makes it not free to them?

The logic is weird but it goes something like this. If someone else pays for it then its not free to the people that are taking advantage of it. So if you see someone giving away an old couch or tv its really not free to you.

I think you posted that to make me laugh. And I'm pretty sure you understand that it's not your remark that I find funny.

 

[320 Years of History]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

This is an interesting proposal. I can concede to the standards for qualification presented, although I would prefer to argument for greater leniency by greater education.

However, I cannot move into that arguing direction at all before we address the concept of cost.

If you have no intention to discuss freedom I believe I have no freedom to discuss education.

Do you need to consider the cost of buying, say, a home before deciding that you aim to buy a home? This thread's topic is no different. The question is whether we should aim to make a college degree free to qualified individuals. In anything one wants to do, the thought process is the same:

1. Decide what one aims to do.
2. Determine how/make a plan to bring that aim to fruition.
3. Execute the plan, adjusting it if/as need be along the way.

As you can see by the remarks in this thread, several folks, yourself included, have skipped step one and raced to step two. What's the point of discussing step two if one hasn't identified what one aims to achieve in step one?

Recognizing one of the other member's comments, I asked whether s/he believes we, as a nation, are incapable of achieving that which we aim to achieve. The reason I asked that question should be clear to any with experience setting goals and achieving them. That's even before considering that among the surest ways not to achieve a goal is to determine it's impossible to achieve before even setting the goal.

 

[the_human_being]

View attachment 64660

The thread isn't about one's having to go to college or what degree one pursues.

FWIW, I have no issue with the trade school route referenced in your cartoon being free if that's what one wants to do.

Also, and again, FWIW, depending on the industry, liberal arts majors start at $60K-$70K per year and the majority of partners in those industries have liberal arts/social science degrees. The starting partner "salary" is well into six figures. So you may want to the following caption for the liberal arts guy:

• Earnings potential:
  ~10 - 13 years into a career with a good firm --> $250K+/year
  ~20 years in --> $700K+/year

I suspect that welding doesn't look nearly as good, now, does it? I'm not saying an exceptional welder cannot match that career earnings potential; I'm saying that it's not the norm for welders, whereas it is for folks who choose any number of professions for which higher education is a requirement and in the practice of which one "meets expectations" and occasionally exceeds them. Or in other words, for one who continues to perform as well professionally as one did academically to earn 3.0 cum/3.6+ in-major GPAs in college so as to get the free college education this thread asks about.

Could you provide a link from a verifiable and reliable source to add credibility to your claims?

Begging the question: Begging the question (fallacy) - Grammarist

Compensation:

• The Average Hourly Wage for a Law Firm Partner
  
• What Can You Expect to Make at a Big 4 Firm Over a 15 Year Period? | Going Concern
  
• https://charlesaris.com/wp-content/...rategy-Consulting-Compensation-Study-2015.pdf

Well, here's what I found which did not include becoming a law firm partner or starting one's own business which requires a good bit of factoring in of unknowns. Starting a business is not ant guarantee of success. According to this aarticle, it takes an awful long time to catch up with those in the STEM fields.

Liberal Arts Degrees Can Net Big Salaries -- if You Wait Long Enough -- The Motley Fool

From the Motley Fool article:

• A recent study by PayScale shows that, after 10 years on the job, many workers with bachelor's degrees in the liberal arts have median salaries at least as hefty as their counterparts in more science-driven occupations. This research mirrors a report earlier this year from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, in which it was found that liberal arts majors on average often make approximately $2,000 more per year than their non-liberal arts peers by the time they reach the 56-60 age range.
• That might seem like an awfully long time to wait to reach parity, but the AAC&U had other upbeat news for the social sciences crowd: Unemployment is usually low for liberal arts graduates, and decreases over time, to a teensy 3.5% by the time these workers are in their 40s.
  
• Under the best-case scenario, it appears that many who graduate with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts will be in their early 30s before they can expect to see their pay catch up to that of STEM graduates who have worked the same length of time.

My thoughts on the article's remarks:

• I don't see what any of that information -- good information that it is -- has to do with whether, as a nation, the U.S. should aim to make college degrees free for qualified students. I haven't made any stipulation that "qualified" also means the student must major in some specific set of disciplines. Are additional criteria like that what you are proposing be added as criteria I listed in the OP?
• Are you questioning whether a college degree is "worth it?" If so you may find this informative:
  • "College graduates aged 25 to 32 who are working full time earn about $17,500 more annually than their peers who have only a high school diploma, according to the Pew Research Centre."
  • "While this doesn’t always hold true, college grads do, on average, make a lot more money than workers who just have a high school diploma. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering:
    • High school drop outs: $18,734
    • High school graduates: $27,915
    • College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206
    • Advanced degree holders: $74,602"
• In this thread, I've been expressly focused on one thing and only one thing -- whether the U.S. should aim to make a college degree free to qualified students. -- and I have yet to find your simple and direct answer to the question the thread/OP asks. I can see your post #29 and post #19 imply your answer might be "no." Is it in fact "no?"

Unrelated to the Motley Fool article, my answer to the OP question is "yes." I believe we, as a nation, should aim to make college free for qualified students for several reasons:

• The skills -- be they STEM-specific or strong, broad-based analytical thinking and problem solving ones -- U.S. workers/citizens need to remain most favorably competitive in the global economy are most readily obtainable by going to college and doing well there.
• It is a waste of our national human resources not to fully develop and fully avail ourselves of the intellectual capacity/capability of all our citizen who demonstrate that they actually have a good deal of that capability. That concept shouldn't be foreign to anyone; just consider all the potential that was lost/wasted by our 250+ years of systemically inculcated and perpetuated racism all but ensured that bright and innovative blacks were unable to make anything of their ideas; thus as a nation, we didn't benefit from them. (Note: this bullet isn't about blacks, whites, or racism; it's about maximizing our citizenry's potential.)
• I believe that, as a nation, U.S. citizens should not be denied the opportunity to maximize their potential and explore their intellectual ideas/vision solely because they come from economically unfortunate circumstances.
• While there are current avenues for one potentially to get a free college education, and I applaud their existing, they are insufficient to meet the demand. "Financial constraints was the number one reason (79%) given by college counselors for why some of their college prep seniors did not go on to college. In their survey, only 30 percent of MAP-eligible students who did not go on to college full-time said that they were financially prepared for college."

Do you think that everyone who has a valid driver's license in the United States should receive a free Corvette to drive? That is the same as the OP.

 

[320 Years of History]

The thread isn't about one's having to go to college or what degree one pursues.

FWIW, I have no issue with the trade school route referenced in your cartoon being free if that's what one wants to do.

Also, and again, FWIW, depending on the industry, liberal arts majors start at $60K-$70K per year and the majority of partners in those industries have liberal arts/social science degrees. The starting partner "salary" is well into six figures. So you may want to the following caption for the liberal arts guy:

• Earnings potential:
  ~10 - 13 years into a career with a good firm --> $250K+/year
  ~20 years in --> $700K+/year

I suspect that welding doesn't look nearly as good, now, does it? I'm not saying an exceptional welder cannot match that career earnings potential; I'm saying that it's not the norm for welders, whereas it is for folks who choose any number of professions for which higher education is a requirement and in the practice of which one "meets expectations" and occasionally exceeds them. Or in other words, for one who continues to perform as well professionally as one did academically to earn 3.0 cum/3.6+ in-major GPAs in college so as to get the free college education this thread asks about.

Could you provide a link from a verifiable and reliable source to add credibility to your claims?

Begging the question: Begging the question (fallacy) - Grammarist

Compensation:

• The Average Hourly Wage for a Law Firm Partner
  
• What Can You Expect to Make at a Big 4 Firm Over a 15 Year Period? | Going Concern
  
• https://charlesaris.com/wp-content/...rategy-Consulting-Compensation-Study-2015.pdf

Well, here's what I found which did not include becoming a law firm partner or starting one's own business which requires a good bit of factoring in of unknowns. Starting a business is not ant guarantee of success. According to this aarticle, it takes an awful long time to catch up with those in the STEM fields.

Liberal Arts Degrees Can Net Big Salaries -- if You Wait Long Enough -- The Motley Fool

From the Motley Fool article:

• A recent study by PayScale shows that, after 10 years on the job, many workers with bachelor's degrees in the liberal arts have median salaries at least as hefty as their counterparts in more science-driven occupations. This research mirrors a report earlier this year from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, in which it was found that liberal arts majors on average often make approximately $2,000 more per year than their non-liberal arts peers by the time they reach the 56-60 age range.
• That might seem like an awfully long time to wait to reach parity, but the AAC&U had other upbeat news for the social sciences crowd: Unemployment is usually low for liberal arts graduates, and decreases over time, to a teensy 3.5% by the time these workers are in their 40s.
  
• Under the best-case scenario, it appears that many who graduate with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts will be in their early 30s before they can expect to see their pay catch up to that of STEM graduates who have worked the same length of time.

My thoughts on the article's remarks:

• I don't see what any of that information -- good information that it is -- has to do with whether, as a nation, the U.S. should aim to make college degrees free for qualified students. I haven't made any stipulation that "qualified" also means the student must major in some specific set of disciplines. Are additional criteria like that what you are proposing be added as criteria I listed in the OP?
• Are you questioning whether a college degree is "worth it?" If so you may find this informative:
  • "College graduates aged 25 to 32 who are working full time earn about $17,500 more annually than their peers who have only a high school diploma, according to the Pew Research Centre."
  • "While this doesn’t always hold true, college grads do, on average, make a lot more money than workers who just have a high school diploma. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering:
    • High school drop outs: $18,734
    • High school graduates: $27,915
    • College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206
    • Advanced degree holders: $74,602"
• In this thread, I've been expressly focused on one thing and only one thing -- whether the U.S. should aim to make a college degree free to qualified students. -- and I have yet to find your simple and direct answer to the question the thread/OP asks. I can see your post #29 and post #19 imply your answer might be "no." Is it in fact "no?"

Unrelated to the Motley Fool article, my answer to the OP question is "yes." I believe we, as a nation, should aim to make college free for qualified students for several reasons:

• The skills -- be they STEM-specific or strong, broad-based analytical thinking and problem solving ones -- U.S. workers/citizens need to remain most favorably competitive in the global economy are most readily obtainable by going to college and doing well there.
• It is a waste of our national human resources not to fully develop and fully avail ourselves of the intellectual capacity/capability of all our citizen who demonstrate that they actually have a good deal of that capability. That concept shouldn't be foreign to anyone; just consider all the potential that was lost/wasted by our 250+ years of systemically inculcated and perpetuated racism all but ensured that bright and innovative blacks were unable to make anything of their ideas; thus as a nation, we didn't benefit from them. (Note: this bullet isn't about blacks, whites, or racism; it's about maximizing our citizenry's potential.)
• I believe that, as a nation, U.S. citizens should not be denied the opportunity to maximize their potential and explore their intellectual ideas/vision solely because they come from economically unfortunate circumstances.
• While there are current avenues for one potentially to get a free college education, and I applaud their existing, they are insufficient to meet the demand. "Financial constraints was the number one reason (79%) given by college counselors for why some of their college prep seniors did not go on to college. In their survey, only 30 percent of MAP-eligible students who did not go on to college full-time said that they were financially prepared for college."

Do you think that everyone who has a valid driver's license in the United States should receive a free Corvette to drive? That is the same as the OP.

While you may frame it as though it seems the same, it is not. All you've done is present a false/weak analogy.

• A driver's license is not the same or similar to a human intellect.
• A college education is not the same or similar to a Corvette, or any other car.

 

[Asclepias]

The thread isn't about one's having to go to college or what degree one pursues.

FWIW, I have no issue with the trade school route referenced in your cartoon being free if that's what one wants to do.

Also, and again, FWIW, depending on the industry, liberal arts majors start at $60K-$70K per year and the majority of partners in those industries have liberal arts/social science degrees. The starting partner "salary" is well into six figures. So you may want to the following caption for the liberal arts guy:

• Earnings potential:
  ~10 - 13 years into a career with a good firm --> $250K+/year
  ~20 years in --> $700K+/year

I suspect that welding doesn't look nearly as good, now, does it? I'm not saying an exceptional welder cannot match that career earnings potential; I'm saying that it's not the norm for welders, whereas it is for folks who choose any number of professions for which higher education is a requirement and in the practice of which one "meets expectations" and occasionally exceeds them. Or in other words, for one who continues to perform as well professionally as one did academically to earn 3.0 cum/3.6+ in-major GPAs in college so as to get the free college education this thread asks about.

Could you provide a link from a verifiable and reliable source to add credibility to your claims?

Begging the question: Begging the question (fallacy) - Grammarist

Compensation:

• The Average Hourly Wage for a Law Firm Partner
  
• What Can You Expect to Make at a Big 4 Firm Over a 15 Year Period? | Going Concern
  
• https://charlesaris.com/wp-content/...rategy-Consulting-Compensation-Study-2015.pdf

Well, here's what I found which did not include becoming a law firm partner or starting one's own business which requires a good bit of factoring in of unknowns. Starting a business is not ant guarantee of success. According to this aarticle, it takes an awful long time to catch up with those in the STEM fields.

Liberal Arts Degrees Can Net Big Salaries -- if You Wait Long Enough -- The Motley Fool

From the Motley Fool article:

• A recent study by PayScale shows that, after 10 years on the job, many workers with bachelor's degrees in the liberal arts have median salaries at least as hefty as their counterparts in more science-driven occupations. This research mirrors a report earlier this year from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, in which it was found that liberal arts majors on average often make approximately $2,000 more per year than their non-liberal arts peers by the time they reach the 56-60 age range.
• That might seem like an awfully long time to wait to reach parity, but the AAC&U had other upbeat news for the social sciences crowd: Unemployment is usually low for liberal arts graduates, and decreases over time, to a teensy 3.5% by the time these workers are in their 40s.
  
• Under the best-case scenario, it appears that many who graduate with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts will be in their early 30s before they can expect to see their pay catch up to that of STEM graduates who have worked the same length of time.

My thoughts on the article's remarks:

• I don't see what any of that information -- good information that it is -- has to do with whether, as a nation, the U.S. should aim to make college degrees free for qualified students. I haven't made any stipulation that "qualified" also means the student must major in some specific set of disciplines. Are additional criteria like that what you are proposing be added as criteria I listed in the OP?
• Are you questioning whether a college degree is "worth it?" If so you may find this informative:
  • "College graduates aged 25 to 32 who are working full time earn about $17,500 more annually than their peers who have only a high school diploma, according to the Pew Research Centre."
  • "While this doesn’t always hold true, college grads do, on average, make a lot more money than workers who just have a high school diploma. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering:
    • High school drop outs: $18,734
    • High school graduates: $27,915
    • College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206
    • Advanced degree holders: $74,602"
• In this thread, I've been expressly focused on one thing and only one thing -- whether the U.S. should aim to make a college degree free to qualified students. -- and I have yet to find your simple and direct answer to the question the thread/OP asks. I can see your post #29 and post #19 imply your answer might be "no." Is it in fact "no?"

Unrelated to the Motley Fool article, my answer to the OP question is "yes." I believe we, as a nation, should aim to make college free for qualified students for several reasons:

• The skills -- be they STEM-specific or strong, broad-based analytical thinking and problem solving ones -- U.S. workers/citizens need to remain most favorably competitive in the global economy are most readily obtainable by going to college and doing well there.
• It is a waste of our national human resources not to fully develop and fully avail ourselves of the intellectual capacity/capability of all our citizen who demonstrate that they actually have a good deal of that capability. That concept shouldn't be foreign to anyone; just consider all the potential that was lost/wasted by our 250+ years of systemically inculcated and perpetuated racism all but ensured that bright and innovative blacks were unable to make anything of their ideas; thus as a nation, we didn't benefit from them. (Note: this bullet isn't about blacks, whites, or racism; it's about maximizing our citizenry's potential.)
• I believe that, as a nation, U.S. citizens should not be denied the opportunity to maximize their potential and explore their intellectual ideas/vision solely because they come from economically unfortunate circumstances.
• While there are current avenues for one potentially to get a free college education, and I applaud their existing, they are insufficient to meet the demand. "Financial constraints was the number one reason (79%) given by college counselors for why some of their college prep seniors did not go on to college. In their survey, only 30 percent of MAP-eligible students who did not go on to college full-time said that they were financially prepared for college."

Do you think that everyone who has a valid driver's license in the United States should receive a free Corvette to drive? That is the same as the OP.

That questions fails as a logical fallacy called false equivalence. Its not hard. Should US citizens have a free college/post highschool education? Yes or no?

 

[the_human_being]

Could you provide a link from a verifiable and reliable source to add credibility to your claims?

Begging the question: Begging the question (fallacy) - Grammarist

Compensation:

• The Average Hourly Wage for a Law Firm Partner
  
• What Can You Expect to Make at a Big 4 Firm Over a 15 Year Period? | Going Concern
  
• https://charlesaris.com/wp-content/...rategy-Consulting-Compensation-Study-2015.pdf

Well, here's what I found which did not include becoming a law firm partner or starting one's own business which requires a good bit of factoring in of unknowns. Starting a business is not ant guarantee of success. According to this aarticle, it takes an awful long time to catch up with those in the STEM fields.

Liberal Arts Degrees Can Net Big Salaries -- if You Wait Long Enough -- The Motley Fool

From the Motley Fool article:

• A recent study by PayScale shows that, after 10 years on the job, many workers with bachelor's degrees in the liberal arts have median salaries at least as hefty as their counterparts in more science-driven occupations. This research mirrors a report earlier this year from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, in which it was found that liberal arts majors on average often make approximately $2,000 more per year than their non-liberal arts peers by the time they reach the 56-60 age range.
• That might seem like an awfully long time to wait to reach parity, but the AAC&U had other upbeat news for the social sciences crowd: Unemployment is usually low for liberal arts graduates, and decreases over time, to a teensy 3.5% by the time these workers are in their 40s.
  
• Under the best-case scenario, it appears that many who graduate with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts will be in their early 30s before they can expect to see their pay catch up to that of STEM graduates who have worked the same length of time.

My thoughts on the article's remarks:

• I don't see what any of that information -- good information that it is -- has to do with whether, as a nation, the U.S. should aim to make college degrees free for qualified students. I haven't made any stipulation that "qualified" also means the student must major in some specific set of disciplines. Are additional criteria like that what you are proposing be added as criteria I listed in the OP?
• Are you questioning whether a college degree is "worth it?" If so you may find this informative:
  • "College graduates aged 25 to 32 who are working full time earn about $17,500 more annually than their peers who have only a high school diploma, according to the Pew Research Centre."
  • "While this doesn’t always hold true, college grads do, on average, make a lot more money than workers who just have a high school diploma. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering:
    • High school drop outs: $18,734
    • High school graduates: $27,915
    • College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206
    • Advanced degree holders: $74,602"
• In this thread, I've been expressly focused on one thing and only one thing -- whether the U.S. should aim to make a college degree free to qualified students. -- and I have yet to find your simple and direct answer to the question the thread/OP asks. I can see your post #29 and post #19 imply your answer might be "no." Is it in fact "no?"

Unrelated to the Motley Fool article, my answer to the OP question is "yes." I believe we, as a nation, should aim to make college free for qualified students for several reasons:

• The skills -- be they STEM-specific or strong, broad-based analytical thinking and problem solving ones -- U.S. workers/citizens need to remain most favorably competitive in the global economy are most readily obtainable by going to college and doing well there.
• It is a waste of our national human resources not to fully develop and fully avail ourselves of the intellectual capacity/capability of all our citizen who demonstrate that they actually have a good deal of that capability. That concept shouldn't be foreign to anyone; just consider all the potential that was lost/wasted by our 250+ years of systemically inculcated and perpetuated racism all but ensured that bright and innovative blacks were unable to make anything of their ideas; thus as a nation, we didn't benefit from them. (Note: this bullet isn't about blacks, whites, or racism; it's about maximizing our citizenry's potential.)
• I believe that, as a nation, U.S. citizens should not be denied the opportunity to maximize their potential and explore their intellectual ideas/vision solely because they come from economically unfortunate circumstances.
• While there are current avenues for one potentially to get a free college education, and I applaud their existing, they are insufficient to meet the demand. "Financial constraints was the number one reason (79%) given by college counselors for why some of their college prep seniors did not go on to college. In their survey, only 30 percent of MAP-eligible students who did not go on to college full-time said that they were financially prepared for college."

Do you think that everyone who has a valid driver's license in the United States should receive a free Corvette to drive? That is the same as the OP.

While you may frame it as though it seems the same, it is not. All you've done is present a false/weak analogy.

• A driver's license is not the same or similar to a human intellect.
• A college education is not the same or similar to a Corvette, or any other car.

And you claim to have a college education??? LOL!! You qualify for a drivers license. You take a test. More than one actually.
The difference is that there is none. Neither are free. Go back and get your money back from your "free" college.

 

[the_human_being]

Could you provide a link from a verifiable and reliable source to add credibility to your claims?

Begging the question: Begging the question (fallacy) - Grammarist

Compensation:

• The Average Hourly Wage for a Law Firm Partner
  
• What Can You Expect to Make at a Big 4 Firm Over a 15 Year Period? | Going Concern
  
• https://charlesaris.com/wp-content/...rategy-Consulting-Compensation-Study-2015.pdf

Well, here's what I found which did not include becoming a law firm partner or starting one's own business which requires a good bit of factoring in of unknowns. Starting a business is not ant guarantee of success. According to this aarticle, it takes an awful long time to catch up with those in the STEM fields.

Liberal Arts Degrees Can Net Big Salaries -- if You Wait Long Enough -- The Motley Fool

From the Motley Fool article:

• A recent study by PayScale shows that, after 10 years on the job, many workers with bachelor's degrees in the liberal arts have median salaries at least as hefty as their counterparts in more science-driven occupations. This research mirrors a report earlier this year from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, in which it was found that liberal arts majors on average often make approximately $2,000 more per year than their non-liberal arts peers by the time they reach the 56-60 age range.
• That might seem like an awfully long time to wait to reach parity, but the AAC&U had other upbeat news for the social sciences crowd: Unemployment is usually low for liberal arts graduates, and decreases over time, to a teensy 3.5% by the time these workers are in their 40s.
  
• Under the best-case scenario, it appears that many who graduate with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts will be in their early 30s before they can expect to see their pay catch up to that of STEM graduates who have worked the same length of time.

My thoughts on the article's remarks:

• I don't see what any of that information -- good information that it is -- has to do with whether, as a nation, the U.S. should aim to make college degrees free for qualified students. I haven't made any stipulation that "qualified" also means the student must major in some specific set of disciplines. Are additional criteria like that what you are proposing be added as criteria I listed in the OP?
• Are you questioning whether a college degree is "worth it?" If so you may find this informative:
  • "College graduates aged 25 to 32 who are working full time earn about $17,500 more annually than their peers who have only a high school diploma, according to the Pew Research Centre."
  • "While this doesn’t always hold true, college grads do, on average, make a lot more money than workers who just have a high school diploma. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering:
    • High school drop outs: $18,734
    • High school graduates: $27,915
    • College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206
    • Advanced degree holders: $74,602"
• In this thread, I've been expressly focused on one thing and only one thing -- whether the U.S. should aim to make a college degree free to qualified students. -- and I have yet to find your simple and direct answer to the question the thread/OP asks. I can see your post #29 and post #19 imply your answer might be "no." Is it in fact "no?"

Unrelated to the Motley Fool article, my answer to the OP question is "yes." I believe we, as a nation, should aim to make college free for qualified students for several reasons:

• The skills -- be they STEM-specific or strong, broad-based analytical thinking and problem solving ones -- U.S. workers/citizens need to remain most favorably competitive in the global economy are most readily obtainable by going to college and doing well there.
• It is a waste of our national human resources not to fully develop and fully avail ourselves of the intellectual capacity/capability of all our citizen who demonstrate that they actually have a good deal of that capability. That concept shouldn't be foreign to anyone; just consider all the potential that was lost/wasted by our 250+ years of systemically inculcated and perpetuated racism all but ensured that bright and innovative blacks were unable to make anything of their ideas; thus as a nation, we didn't benefit from them. (Note: this bullet isn't about blacks, whites, or racism; it's about maximizing our citizenry's potential.)
• I believe that, as a nation, U.S. citizens should not be denied the opportunity to maximize their potential and explore their intellectual ideas/vision solely because they come from economically unfortunate circumstances.
• While there are current avenues for one potentially to get a free college education, and I applaud their existing, they are insufficient to meet the demand. "Financial constraints was the number one reason (79%) given by college counselors for why some of their college prep seniors did not go on to college. In their survey, only 30 percent of MAP-eligible students who did not go on to college full-time said that they were financially prepared for college."

Do you think that everyone who has a valid driver's license in the United States should receive a free Corvette to drive? That is the same as the OP.

That questions fails as a logical fallacy called false equivalence. Its not hard. Should US citizens have a free college/post highschool education? Yes or no?

First you must explain how any college education can possibly be termed "free".

 

[oldsoul]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

My biggest issue with it is entrusting the government (even if only as a "middle-man"), to facilitate further education. Despite rising cost, we are falling further and further behind other industrialized nations. What would prevent this from continuing into post-secondary schooling in your suggestion? Absent some sort of way to prevent the government to have ANY way of influencing the individual school (or the "industry" as a whole), I would have to say no. If such a preventative measure where suggested, I would consider it based on it's merit, and any evidence of probability of success.

Red:
In the long run, if graduate education were shown to be necessary, nothing.

Blue:
"Facilitate further?" I don't understand what that has do with whether the goal of making a college education free should or should not be among the goals we seek to achieve.

"Influencing the individual school?" Again, I don't understand what that has do with whether the goal of making a college education free should or should not be among the goals we seek to achieve.

Other:
I just asked if the end -- free college education for qualified students -- should be something we aim to make available. I didn't even posit that the government needed to be the vehicle that makes it possible, in part because I expressly stated that the question isn't about means, only about one end. I asked only whether it's something that, as a nation, we should or should not strive to make happen.

Ok, fair enough. Answer to the original question: No. Generally speaking, that which one does not pay for, one does not treat with the same respect as that which one does pay for. Another way of putting it, most people take better care of that which is theirs (and they presumably paid for), than that which is not theirs. Regardless of the entity paying for the education, if the student (or someone the student is responsible to) does not have direct "skin in the game", they will, as a matter of human nature, have a tendancy to be less vigalant about utilizing it to their fullest ability. Also, as stated above, the competitive nature of a college education makes it far more usefull than it otherwise would be.

 

[JoeMoma]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

This is an interesting proposal. I can concede to the standards for qualification presented, although I would prefer to argument for greater leniency by greater education.

However, I cannot move into that arguing direction at all before we address the concept of cost.

If you have no intention to discuss freedom I believe I have no freedom to discuss education.

Do you need to consider the cost of buying, say, a home before deciding that you aim to buy a home? This thread's topic is no different. The question is whether we should aim to make a college degree free to qualified individuals. In anything one wants to do, the thought process is the same:

1. Decide what one aims to do.
2. Determine how/make a plan to bring that aim to fruition.
3. Execute the plan, adjusting it if/as need be along the way.

As you can see by the remarks in this thread, several folks, yourself included, have skipped step one and raced to step two. What's the point of discussing step two if one hasn't identified what one aims to achieve in step one?

Recognizing one of the other member's comments, I asked whether s/he believes we, as a nation, are incapable of achieving that which we aim to achieve. The reason I asked that question should be clear to any with experience setting goals and achieving them. That's even before considering that among the surest ways not to achieve a goal is to determine it's impossible to achieve before even setting the goal.

"Do you need to consider the cost of buying, say, a home before deciding that you aim to buy a home?"

Yes, the cost would be one of the many important factors to consider.

 

[Holos]

The title question says it all. It's a yes or no question. It is not a question about how to make it free for all who qualify academically. It is a question of about whether, in your mind, the end -- a no direct cost to the student/student's family college education -- is one that the U.S. should aim to achieve.

What does "qualify" mean in the context of the question? Measurably, it means one must achieve all of the following:

• Graduate from high school in the U.S. (or a U.S. territory) with a 3.0 cumulative GPA for grades 9 through 12,
• Score in at least the 80th percentile (overall) on either the SAT or ACT, and
• Finish a bachelor's degree in 9 semesters (4.5 years) or less with a cumulative 3.0 or higher GPA and a 3.6 or higher in one's major(s) and minor(s) (if one opts to minor in something).

This is an interesting proposal. I can concede to the standards for qualification presented, although I would prefer to argument for greater leniency by greater education.

However, I cannot move into that arguing direction at all before we address the concept of cost.

If you have no intention to discuss freedom I believe I have no freedom to discuss education.

Do you need to consider the cost of buying, say, a home before deciding that you aim to buy a home? This thread's topic is no different. The question is whether we should aim to make a college degree free to qualified individuals. In anything one wants to do, the thought process is the same:

1. Decide what one aims to do.
2. Determine how/make a plan to bring that aim to fruition.
3. Execute the plan, adjusting it if/as need be along the way.

As you can see by the remarks in this thread, several folks, yourself included, have skipped step one and raced to step two. What's the point of discussing step two if one hasn't identified what one aims to achieve in step one?

Recognizing one of the other member's comments, I asked whether s/he believes we, as a nation, are incapable of achieving that which we aim to achieve. The reason I asked that question should be clear to any with experience setting goals and achieving them. That's even before considering that among the surest ways not to achieve a goal is to determine it's impossible to achieve before even setting the goal.

The answer to your first question, whether we need to consider cost before buying, is yes we do need to consider cost whenever we aim to buy something.

I have already evaluated the cost of engaging with your thread and the aim it proposes. Do you, yourself, know the cost? It doesn't seem that way to me because otherwise we would not be backwardly discussing the different ways to get to a possible future, but the most cost effective way to achieve the already established future.

I skipped the first step because you asked me to, but I objected to your request for your lack of providence and cohesion. If I had altogether delved in the topic as you had set without objecting to any part of it then I would be having to pay more than I know I would actually need to.

Of course we are capable as a nation. That isn't at all questionable if we are to proceed. Your main initiating question is about what we should do, not about what we can do. It seems you have become confused along the way.

 

[oldsoul]

Do you need to consider the cost of buying, say, a home before deciding that you aim to buy a home? This thread's topic is no different. The question is whether we should aim to make a college degree free to qualified individuals. In anything one wants to do, the thought process is the same:

1. Decide what one aims to do.
2. Determine how/make a plan to bring that aim to fruition.
3. Execute the plan, adjusting it if/as need be along the way.

You missed one very important step:
Is it reasonably attainable?
I would put that in as step (2), if it's not attainable, the rest is irrelanvent.

 

[Unkotare]

.....to your assertion that "it can't be free."
...

Nothing is "free." You should know that.

Tell that to my kids. You can be sure that every bit of education they received was and remains free to them.

None of it was free. Is this really so hard to understand?

What makes it not free to them?

It's not free because someone has to pay.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Now matter how you twist it, it can't be free.

should those numbers be used as a base for entrance? sure, depending on their field of choice (I had great numbers in math and history but barely passed English, so english at college?) plus many students did well in shop classes but not so well with books. That puts them out of the running in most cases.

 

[oldsoul]

Do you need to consider the cost of buying, say, a home before deciding that you aim to buy a home?

Only a fool would say no, and we all know what happens to a fools money....
If one does not consider the cost of buying a home before deciding to aim for it, one would likely be "blind-sided" by the realities of home ownership.
Off topic:
When I was considering "aiming to buy a home" I considered several things, among them:

• price of purchase.
• price of maintaining.
• price of repairs.

I understood that I, and I alone, would be responsible for these items. Only a fool would decide to "aim to buy a home" without considering these things, among others.

 

[Holos]

Now matter how you twist it, it can't be free.

should those numbers be used as a base for entrance? sure, depending on their field of choice (I had great numbers in math and history but barely passed English, so english at college?) plus many students did well in shop classes but not so well with books. That puts them out of the running in most cases.

Yes, it can be free just as a long road is free (windy or not).

It just means complete freedom is a procedure requiring commitment to be fully embraced and not an instant liberating, emancipating, recognition. Freedom is a cognitive cumulative process which enhances itself, not an escape or a victory.

There is vast difference between Freedom and Liberty. Liberty is a right to be exercised according to specifc conditions that may emerge to put indepence at risk. Freedom is the constant course we all tread in which the exercise of rights becomes unavoidable.

 

[320 Years of History]

Begging the question: Begging the question (fallacy) - Grammarist

Compensation:

• The Average Hourly Wage for a Law Firm Partner
  
• What Can You Expect to Make at a Big 4 Firm Over a 15 Year Period? | Going Concern
  
• https://charlesaris.com/wp-content/...rategy-Consulting-Compensation-Study-2015.pdf

Well, here's what I found which did not include becoming a law firm partner or starting one's own business which requires a good bit of factoring in of unknowns. Starting a business is not ant guarantee of success. According to this aarticle, it takes an awful long time to catch up with those in the STEM fields.

Liberal Arts Degrees Can Net Big Salaries -- if You Wait Long Enough -- The Motley Fool

From the Motley Fool article:

• A recent study by PayScale shows that, after 10 years on the job, many workers with bachelor's degrees in the liberal arts have median salaries at least as hefty as their counterparts in more science-driven occupations. This research mirrors a report earlier this year from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, in which it was found that liberal arts majors on average often make approximately $2,000 more per year than their non-liberal arts peers by the time they reach the 56-60 age range.
• That might seem like an awfully long time to wait to reach parity, but the AAC&U had other upbeat news for the social sciences crowd: Unemployment is usually low for liberal arts graduates, and decreases over time, to a teensy 3.5% by the time these workers are in their 40s.
  
• Under the best-case scenario, it appears that many who graduate with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts will be in their early 30s before they can expect to see their pay catch up to that of STEM graduates who have worked the same length of time.

My thoughts on the article's remarks:

• I don't see what any of that information -- good information that it is -- has to do with whether, as a nation, the U.S. should aim to make college degrees free for qualified students. I haven't made any stipulation that "qualified" also means the student must major in some specific set of disciplines. Are additional criteria like that what you are proposing be added as criteria I listed in the OP?
• Are you questioning whether a college degree is "worth it?" If so you may find this informative:
  • "College graduates aged 25 to 32 who are working full time earn about $17,500 more annually than their peers who have only a high school diploma, according to the Pew Research Centre."
  • "While this doesn’t always hold true, college grads do, on average, make a lot more money than workers who just have a high school diploma. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering:
    • High school drop outs: $18,734
    • High school graduates: $27,915
    • College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206
    • Advanced degree holders: $74,602"
• In this thread, I've been expressly focused on one thing and only one thing -- whether the U.S. should aim to make a college degree free to qualified students. -- and I have yet to find your simple and direct answer to the question the thread/OP asks. I can see your post #29 and post #19 imply your answer might be "no." Is it in fact "no?"

Unrelated to the Motley Fool article, my answer to the OP question is "yes." I believe we, as a nation, should aim to make college free for qualified students for several reasons:

• The skills -- be they STEM-specific or strong, broad-based analytical thinking and problem solving ones -- U.S. workers/citizens need to remain most favorably competitive in the global economy are most readily obtainable by going to college and doing well there.
• It is a waste of our national human resources not to fully develop and fully avail ourselves of the intellectual capacity/capability of all our citizen who demonstrate that they actually have a good deal of that capability. That concept shouldn't be foreign to anyone; just consider all the potential that was lost/wasted by our 250+ years of systemically inculcated and perpetuated racism all but ensured that bright and innovative blacks were unable to make anything of their ideas; thus as a nation, we didn't benefit from them. (Note: this bullet isn't about blacks, whites, or racism; it's about maximizing our citizenry's potential.)
• I believe that, as a nation, U.S. citizens should not be denied the opportunity to maximize their potential and explore their intellectual ideas/vision solely because they come from economically unfortunate circumstances.
• While there are current avenues for one potentially to get a free college education, and I applaud their existing, they are insufficient to meet the demand. "Financial constraints was the number one reason (79%) given by college counselors for why some of their college prep seniors did not go on to college. In their survey, only 30 percent of MAP-eligible students who did not go on to college full-time said that they were financially prepared for college."

Do you think that everyone who has a valid driver's license in the United States should receive a free Corvette to drive? That is the same as the OP.

While you may frame it as though it seems the same, it is not. All you've done is present a false/weak analogy.

• A driver's license is not the same or similar to a human intellect.
• A college education is not the same or similar to a Corvette, or any other car.

And you claim to have a college education??? LOL!! You qualify for a drivers license. You take a test. More than one actually.
The difference is that there is none. Neither are free. Go back and get your money back from your "free" college.

Thank you for demonstrating that you'd developed a weak analogy. I speculated to myself that if I just left you to your own devices you'd find some circumstantial similarity that, though it exists, isn't causal in establishing a strong correspondence between intellectual enrichment and driver licenses. And you did exactly that. Mind you, I take no great pride in your having done, for as Charles Portis in True Grit wrote, "What have you done when you have bested a fool?"

 

[320 Years of History]

Begging the question: Begging the question (fallacy) - Grammarist

Compensation:

• The Average Hourly Wage for a Law Firm Partner
  
• What Can You Expect to Make at a Big 4 Firm Over a 15 Year Period? | Going Concern
  
• https://charlesaris.com/wp-content/...rategy-Consulting-Compensation-Study-2015.pdf

Well, here's what I found which did not include becoming a law firm partner or starting one's own business which requires a good bit of factoring in of unknowns. Starting a business is not ant guarantee of success. According to this aarticle, it takes an awful long time to catch up with those in the STEM fields.

Liberal Arts Degrees Can Net Big Salaries -- if You Wait Long Enough -- The Motley Fool

From the Motley Fool article:

• A recent study by PayScale shows that, after 10 years on the job, many workers with bachelor's degrees in the liberal arts have median salaries at least as hefty as their counterparts in more science-driven occupations. This research mirrors a report earlier this year from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, in which it was found that liberal arts majors on average often make approximately $2,000 more per year than their non-liberal arts peers by the time they reach the 56-60 age range.
• That might seem like an awfully long time to wait to reach parity, but the AAC&U had other upbeat news for the social sciences crowd: Unemployment is usually low for liberal arts graduates, and decreases over time, to a teensy 3.5% by the time these workers are in their 40s.
  
• Under the best-case scenario, it appears that many who graduate with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts will be in their early 30s before they can expect to see their pay catch up to that of STEM graduates who have worked the same length of time.

My thoughts on the article's remarks:

• I don't see what any of that information -- good information that it is -- has to do with whether, as a nation, the U.S. should aim to make college degrees free for qualified students. I haven't made any stipulation that "qualified" also means the student must major in some specific set of disciplines. Are additional criteria like that what you are proposing be added as criteria I listed in the OP?
• Are you questioning whether a college degree is "worth it?" If so you may find this informative:
  • "College graduates aged 25 to 32 who are working full time earn about $17,500 more annually than their peers who have only a high school diploma, according to the Pew Research Centre."
  • "While this doesn’t always hold true, college grads do, on average, make a lot more money than workers who just have a high school diploma. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering:
    • High school drop outs: $18,734
    • High school graduates: $27,915
    • College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206
    • Advanced degree holders: $74,602"
• In this thread, I've been expressly focused on one thing and only one thing -- whether the U.S. should aim to make a college degree free to qualified students. -- and I have yet to find your simple and direct answer to the question the thread/OP asks. I can see your post #29 and post #19 imply your answer might be "no." Is it in fact "no?"

Unrelated to the Motley Fool article, my answer to the OP question is "yes." I believe we, as a nation, should aim to make college free for qualified students for several reasons:

• The skills -- be they STEM-specific or strong, broad-based analytical thinking and problem solving ones -- U.S. workers/citizens need to remain most favorably competitive in the global economy are most readily obtainable by going to college and doing well there.
• It is a waste of our national human resources not to fully develop and fully avail ourselves of the intellectual capacity/capability of all our citizen who demonstrate that they actually have a good deal of that capability. That concept shouldn't be foreign to anyone; just consider all the potential that was lost/wasted by our 250+ years of systemically inculcated and perpetuated racism all but ensured that bright and innovative blacks were unable to make anything of their ideas; thus as a nation, we didn't benefit from them. (Note: this bullet isn't about blacks, whites, or racism; it's about maximizing our citizenry's potential.)
• I believe that, as a nation, U.S. citizens should not be denied the opportunity to maximize their potential and explore their intellectual ideas/vision solely because they come from economically unfortunate circumstances.
• While there are current avenues for one potentially to get a free college education, and I applaud their existing, they are insufficient to meet the demand. "Financial constraints was the number one reason (79%) given by college counselors for why some of their college prep seniors did not go on to college. In their survey, only 30 percent of MAP-eligible students who did not go on to college full-time said that they were financially prepared for college."

Do you think that everyone who has a valid driver's license in the United States should receive a free Corvette to drive? That is the same as the OP.

That questions fails as a logical fallacy called false equivalence. Its not hard. Should US citizens have a free college/post highschool education? Yes or no?

First you must explain how any college education can possibly be termed "free".

Let me guess, you will now resort to equivocation?

I haven't read yet past this post, but let's see what happens....

 

[the_human_being]

Well, here's what I found which did not include becoming a law firm partner or starting one's own business which requires a good bit of factoring in of unknowns. Starting a business is not ant guarantee of success. According to this aarticle, it takes an awful long time to catch up with those in the STEM fields.

Liberal Arts Degrees Can Net Big Salaries -- if You Wait Long Enough -- The Motley Fool

From the Motley Fool article:

• A recent study by PayScale shows that, after 10 years on the job, many workers with bachelor's degrees in the liberal arts have median salaries at least as hefty as their counterparts in more science-driven occupations. This research mirrors a report earlier this year from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, in which it was found that liberal arts majors on average often make approximately $2,000 more per year than their non-liberal arts peers by the time they reach the 56-60 age range.
• That might seem like an awfully long time to wait to reach parity, but the AAC&U had other upbeat news for the social sciences crowd: Unemployment is usually low for liberal arts graduates, and decreases over time, to a teensy 3.5% by the time these workers are in their 40s.
  
• Under the best-case scenario, it appears that many who graduate with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts will be in their early 30s before they can expect to see their pay catch up to that of STEM graduates who have worked the same length of time.

My thoughts on the article's remarks:

• I don't see what any of that information -- good information that it is -- has to do with whether, as a nation, the U.S. should aim to make college degrees free for qualified students. I haven't made any stipulation that "qualified" also means the student must major in some specific set of disciplines. Are additional criteria like that what you are proposing be added as criteria I listed in the OP?
• Are you questioning whether a college degree is "worth it?" If so you may find this informative:
  • "College graduates aged 25 to 32 who are working full time earn about $17,500 more annually than their peers who have only a high school diploma, according to the Pew Research Centre."
  • "While this doesn’t always hold true, college grads do, on average, make a lot more money than workers who just have a high school diploma. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering:
    • High school drop outs: $18,734
    • High school graduates: $27,915
    • College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206
    • Advanced degree holders: $74,602"
• In this thread, I've been expressly focused on one thing and only one thing -- whether the U.S. should aim to make a college degree free to qualified students. -- and I have yet to find your simple and direct answer to the question the thread/OP asks. I can see your post #29 and post #19 imply your answer might be "no." Is it in fact "no?"

Unrelated to the Motley Fool article, my answer to the OP question is "yes." I believe we, as a nation, should aim to make college free for qualified students for several reasons:

• The skills -- be they STEM-specific or strong, broad-based analytical thinking and problem solving ones -- U.S. workers/citizens need to remain most favorably competitive in the global economy are most readily obtainable by going to college and doing well there.
• It is a waste of our national human resources not to fully develop and fully avail ourselves of the intellectual capacity/capability of all our citizen who demonstrate that they actually have a good deal of that capability. That concept shouldn't be foreign to anyone; just consider all the potential that was lost/wasted by our 250+ years of systemically inculcated and perpetuated racism all but ensured that bright and innovative blacks were unable to make anything of their ideas; thus as a nation, we didn't benefit from them. (Note: this bullet isn't about blacks, whites, or racism; it's about maximizing our citizenry's potential.)
• I believe that, as a nation, U.S. citizens should not be denied the opportunity to maximize their potential and explore their intellectual ideas/vision solely because they come from economically unfortunate circumstances.
• While there are current avenues for one potentially to get a free college education, and I applaud their existing, they are insufficient to meet the demand. "Financial constraints was the number one reason (79%) given by college counselors for why some of their college prep seniors did not go on to college. In their survey, only 30 percent of MAP-eligible students who did not go on to college full-time said that they were financially prepared for college."

Do you think that everyone who has a valid driver's license in the United States should receive a free Corvette to drive? That is the same as the OP.

While you may frame it as though it seems the same, it is not. All you've done is present a false/weak analogy.

• A driver's license is not the same or similar to a human intellect.
• A college education is not the same or similar to a Corvette, or any other car.

And you claim to have a college education??? LOL!! You qualify for a drivers license. You take a test. More than one actually.
The difference is that there is none. Neither are free. Go back and get your money back from your "free" college.

Thank you for demonstrating that you'd developed a weak analogy. I speculated to myself that if I just left you to your own devices you'd find some circumstantial similarity that, though it exists, isn't causal in establishing a strong correspondence between intellectual enrichment and driver licenses. And you did exactly that. Mind you, I take no great pride in your having done, for as Charles Portis in True Grit wrote, "What have you done when you have bested a fool?"

Then tell us first how you intend to provide "free college" since that is a total impossibility.

 

[the_human_being]

Well, here's what I found which did not include becoming a law firm partner or starting one's own business which requires a good bit of factoring in of unknowns. Starting a business is not ant guarantee of success. According to this aarticle, it takes an awful long time to catch up with those in the STEM fields.

Liberal Arts Degrees Can Net Big Salaries -- if You Wait Long Enough -- The Motley Fool

From the Motley Fool article:

• A recent study by PayScale shows that, after 10 years on the job, many workers with bachelor's degrees in the liberal arts have median salaries at least as hefty as their counterparts in more science-driven occupations. This research mirrors a report earlier this year from the Association of American Colleges and Universities, in which it was found that liberal arts majors on average often make approximately $2,000 more per year than their non-liberal arts peers by the time they reach the 56-60 age range.
• That might seem like an awfully long time to wait to reach parity, but the AAC&U had other upbeat news for the social sciences crowd: Unemployment is usually low for liberal arts graduates, and decreases over time, to a teensy 3.5% by the time these workers are in their 40s.
  
• Under the best-case scenario, it appears that many who graduate with a bachelor's degree in liberal arts will be in their early 30s before they can expect to see their pay catch up to that of STEM graduates who have worked the same length of time.

My thoughts on the article's remarks:

• I don't see what any of that information -- good information that it is -- has to do with whether, as a nation, the U.S. should aim to make college degrees free for qualified students. I haven't made any stipulation that "qualified" also means the student must major in some specific set of disciplines. Are additional criteria like that what you are proposing be added as criteria I listed in the OP?
• Are you questioning whether a college degree is "worth it?" If so you may find this informative:
  • "College graduates aged 25 to 32 who are working full time earn about $17,500 more annually than their peers who have only a high school diploma, according to the Pew Research Centre."
  • "While this doesn’t always hold true, college grads do, on average, make a lot more money than workers who just have a high school diploma. In fact, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, the annual salary average differences between educational levels is staggering:
    • High school drop outs: $18,734
    • High school graduates: $27,915
    • College grads (with a bachelor’s degree): $51,206
    • Advanced degree holders: $74,602"
• In this thread, I've been expressly focused on one thing and only one thing -- whether the U.S. should aim to make a college degree free to qualified students. -- and I have yet to find your simple and direct answer to the question the thread/OP asks. I can see your post #29 and post #19 imply your answer might be "no." Is it in fact "no?"

Unrelated to the Motley Fool article, my answer to the OP question is "yes." I believe we, as a nation, should aim to make college free for qualified students for several reasons:

• The skills -- be they STEM-specific or strong, broad-based analytical thinking and problem solving ones -- U.S. workers/citizens need to remain most favorably competitive in the global economy are most readily obtainable by going to college and doing well there.
• It is a waste of our national human resources not to fully develop and fully avail ourselves of the intellectual capacity/capability of all our citizen who demonstrate that they actually have a good deal of that capability. That concept shouldn't be foreign to anyone; just consider all the potential that was lost/wasted by our 250+ years of systemically inculcated and perpetuated racism all but ensured that bright and innovative blacks were unable to make anything of their ideas; thus as a nation, we didn't benefit from them. (Note: this bullet isn't about blacks, whites, or racism; it's about maximizing our citizenry's potential.)
• I believe that, as a nation, U.S. citizens should not be denied the opportunity to maximize their potential and explore their intellectual ideas/vision solely because they come from economically unfortunate circumstances.
• While there are current avenues for one potentially to get a free college education, and I applaud their existing, they are insufficient to meet the demand. "Financial constraints was the number one reason (79%) given by college counselors for why some of their college prep seniors did not go on to college. In their survey, only 30 percent of MAP-eligible students who did not go on to college full-time said that they were financially prepared for college."

Do you think that everyone who has a valid driver's license in the United States should receive a free Corvette to drive? That is the same as the OP.

That questions fails as a logical fallacy called false equivalence. Its not hard. Should US citizens have a free college/post highschool education? Yes or no?

First you must explain how any college education can possibly be termed "free".

Let me guess, you will now resort to equivocation?

I haven't read yet past this post, but let's see what happens....

Why not simply answer the question I posed to you instead of dodging it?

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nothing is free.

Those who benefit from subsidized tuition will contribute in taxes for the entirety of their adult life.

Think.