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

[Unkotare]

The competitive nature of higher education in America is what has made it by far the best in the world. Public k-12 education, nobly intended and important in principle, lacks this essential competitiveness. Improving education is absolutely vital, but replacing the strength of one educational context with the weakness of another is utterly irrational.

.

 

[Unkotare]

We had a very nice young man with a biochemistry degree serve us our lunch Sunday at a local restaurant. (Not joking). I made sure to tip him 20%. It's our family policy not to tip over 15% for non STEM graduates.

So yeah. Put the taxpayers on the hook for producing more highly educated waiters, waitresses and bartenders.

And more English majors. We need a lot more English majors. They make great disgruntled Starbucks baristas. Nothing goes down better with your decaf, soy latte with an extra shot and cream than the whinny moans of crushed dreams and misplaced aspirations.

You don't want biochemists?

 

[williepete]

You don't want biochemists?

Yes of course. And more so, a vibrant economy that can keep him employed. This young man we met will do well when or if the economy ever turns around. Not so much for the English majors.

Get this economy up and running before foolish talk about sending kids to school for free when there are no jobs waiting for biochemists not to mention French Literature or Gender Studies grads.

Horse before the cart.

 

[Unkotare]

You don't want biochemists?

Yes of course. And more so, a vibrant economy that can keep him employed. This young man we met will do well when or if the economy ever turns around. Not so much for the English majors.

You think English majors never find jobs?

 

[williepete]

You think English majors never find jobs?

Of course they do unless they're trust fund babies and don't feel the need to work.

In a healthy economy, there are areas where an English major can find work:
How Much Money Do English Majors Make?

In our current poor economy or a booming one, is it worth the investment in time and money to pursue an English major over a STEM degree? From an investment point of view, what is the best return on your time and money?

Would I advise a kid to go into crippling debt for an English major these days? No.

The same for a STEM degree? Yes to maybe.

Would I back giving out any of these degrees "for free"?

Never. At some point, a kid has to show some initiative and drive to get up and earn something if he's going to make it after school. Handing kids freebies weaken them. It warps their expectations and negatively shapes the decisions they make.

If you need your hand held in the cream puff insulated fantasy land of college, you're going to have a very hard time adjusting to the real world.

 

[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).

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.

The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War​

I tend to agree that "skin in the game" plays one of the key roles in driving the zeal with which one pursues an end. The thing is that the criteria I defined require that the individuals for whom I propose making college free to them require that those folks be at least exceptional to some extent. I don't, however, agree that current financial contributions are the only meaningful forms of "skin" one can invest in "the game."

I don't have a lot of experience with the na'er do wells and low achievers of the world, but neither am I advocating giving them a free college education; I wouldn't do that as an individual, so I wouldn't ask my countrymen to do so either. I do, on the other hand, have a great deal of experience with above average and high achievers, with people who routinely exceed expectations, with self-motivated people, with people who recognize a good opportunity for what it is, and when one is handed to them, exploit it for all its worth.

With regard to young people obtaining an education, that experience includes my own three kids as well as a smattering of extremely disadvantaged (financially) but inherently bright kids whom I took on as mentorees. Among my mentorees, not one whom I have "kept on board," so to speak, has finished high school or college without being in the top five percent of their classes and earning at cum laude honors at college. All my mentorees who've finished college have gone on to begin excellent careers and are contributing members of society. For every one of my birth children and long-term mentorees, their entire academic careers have been free to them, and each of my birth kids has graduated as "academic one percenters."

One might rightly ask, "Well, what 'skin in the game' had those young people seeing as I funded their educations and required no financial input from them?" When it comes to education, some, but clearly not all, young people realize that they are laying the foundation for nearly all that they will make come their way upon completing school. The people for whom I've proposed the idea of making their college education free must demonstrate prior to college that they appreciate the value of an education enough and that they are capable of excelling at being thus educated. The answer to his paragraphs question thus is simple. For each of them, along with the folks for whom I advocate making their college education free, the "skin" they have in it is their future.

For my kids that future surely results from differing motivations:

• My birth kids: I suppose it plausible that at some point they may have anticipated that among their grandparents, me, and their mother, they would find themselves with some sort of persistent financial support such as a trust fund. Well, though I cannot speak for their mother or grandparents, I made it clear to them that I had no intention of establishing a trust for them if they didn't perform "up to snuff" in school. The thing is that by performing "up to snuff," they won't in fact need that support; it'll become little more than a "nice to have." So for them, the "skin" is that of sort of an "all or nothing" proposition with regard to their having to establish their own financial futures and being able to maintain themselves in the manner to which I've made them accustomed. My kids each know that although I'll do whatever I can to help them make that happen, I'll only do it if they live up to my expectations -- that they succeed at being among the best at whatever they do -- of their academic and personal development.
• My mentoree "kids": For them, the "skin" is quite different, although the requirement to live up to my expectations, and the expectations themselves, are not. For these kids, the prospect of a life little different than that to which they were born is their "skin in the game." I have to believe that is a pretty powerful motivator for each of them can see quite clearly the differences between the opportunities that have come available to them, in comparison with those their "birth" peers haven't had, merely because they showed a good extent of intellectual acuity and applied it so they did/do well in school.
  
  Take one of them, as an example, but for all my "kids," the story is much the same. She did quite well in high school, but in her academic endeavors and in extracurriculars. I advised her, as I do all my "kids," to apply to top schools that have large endowments and that are committed to making college possible for poor folks. Now in her case, even mustering the money to apply to multiple schools was no mean accomplishment. All the same, her chosen schools, Williams, Amherst and Brown, each provided her with a financial aid package that resulted in her having to pay what most of us would consider "nothing." (At one of them it was literally nothing, and that's where she chose to go.)

The second anecdote above is offered, not only to address the motivation factor you mentioned, but also to highlight the reality of affording U.S. higher education: kids from well off background and kids from very poor backgrounds can, provided they have the grades and experiences to merit it, go to pretty much any of the nation's top colleges. But what about those from families that are neither sufficiently well off to pay for it on their own nor sufficiently poor to obtain a very generous aid package?

Sure, the kids for whom I'm proposing aren't the absolute top academic performers, but they have nonetheless performed well, better than average. I believe it's a waste of human resources to deny those kids a college education because they (their families) cannot muster the funds to send them to college. I believe that because as above average performers, they have clearly demonstrated they have "something" to contribute and that "something" should be developed so our society, and the individuals themselves, can benefit from its full potential.

How does my proposed objective -- free college for qualified individuals -- help us as a nation and as individuals? It does so in a few ways:

• In terms of ensuring intellectual advancement/superiority, it puts us ahead of, or in some cases on par with, the nations with which our citizens must compete in the global marketplace.
• It boosts the likely personal financial well being of more of our citizens.
• It establishes a clear and present reason for young people to be and learn the habits of higher achievers; it in itself provides a motivating factor for early life success to a segment of our society that otherwise is consigned to either advancing themselves or falling backward.

What my proposal is about is embarking on a strategic journey toward ensuring that "middle class" in the U.S. is something the rest of the world will aim for but not surpass.

Never send a battalion to take a hill if a regiment is available.
― Dwight D. Eisenhower​

 

[320 Years of History]

You don't want biochemists?

Yes of course. And more so, a vibrant economy that can keep him employed. This young man we met will do well when or if the economy ever turns around. Not so much for the English majors.

You think English majors never find jobs?

They find plenty of them. A good number of them become attorneys and businesspeople.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Don't mistake the intent of my proposal. I don't see a major distinction between college and trade school as goes the proposal I made in my OP. I realize I didn't state that directly in my OP, but I have now. So long as one meets the criteria -- I don't think low to average performers deserve free trade school any more than I think they deserve free college -- I don't much care whether they purse college or trade school. What I care about is that they enter and finish either among the top of their graduating class, thereby showing they deserve to have been ensured of being able to attend (absent financial worry/burden) whichever one they choose.

 

[williepete]

We already have a meritocracy in this country. The talented get full scholarships. Partial scholarships are numerous.

The rest work their way through which I can tell you first hand was a better education than anything those pompous buffoons in the classroom taught me.

The lazy whine for handouts.

I would love to see company sponsored apprenticeships brought back. Trade schools give more bang for the buck. Graduates earn more out the gate but their earnings level off after a few years and fall behind some college grads in the long run. If the trade school grads use their most valuable investment asset of time, they can secure a very comfortable retirement.

In the 70's, my high school had a dual track system. At the end of your sophomore year, you chose a college or trade track. If you chose the trade track, you left high school after lunch and went over to the local VoTech and studied there to learn a trade. While in VoTech, you met people who would recommend you for jobs. Almost all did well right out of the gate.

 

[320 Years of History]

We had a very nice young man with a biochemistry degree serve us our lunch Sunday at a local restaurant. (Not joking). I made sure to tip him 20%. It's our family policy not to tip over 15% for non STEM graduates.

So yeah. Put the taxpayers on the hook for producing more highly educated waiters, waitresses and bartenders.

And more English majors. We need a lot more English majors. They make great disgruntled Starbucks baristas. Nothing goes down better with your decaf, soy latte with an extra shot and cream than the whinny moans of crushed dreams and misplaced aspirations.

You don't want biochemists?

The thing about the biochemist anecdote williepete shared is that it's entirely unclear what sort of performance he delivered in his course of study. One can finish a biochemistry bachelor's degree with a two-point-something and indeed be someone who graduated with a degree in biochemistry. I suppose some folks mistakenly believe, or optimistically wish, that a college degree of any merit is "something." That may have been so at some point in the 20th century or before. It's not so these days.

That's all well and good, but it does nothing to mitigate or obviate the fact that at such an early point in one's professional aspirations/career -- right after graduating from college -- the most significant thing potential employers have that speaks to one's skills, commitment, and abilities is one's record in college. Among the several things a college degree indicates is that the GPA one obtains shows the level of effort one put into doing well in whatever was one's course of study. A high GPA shows that one committed to and succeeded at doing the absolute best that was asked of one to do.

Recognizing that reality is why I asked back in post #24 what williepete knew of the gentleman's skills and accomplishments in college, of course, given the topic of this thread, not as a waiter...Yet what poorly punctuated and dumbass reply did I get? "What do I know about his comparative skills and accomplishments? He's a frigging waiter Einstein." That's why its to you and not him I've replied with regard to the circumstance of the table waiting biochemist.

If the fellow completed his degree standing in the middle of his peer group, it's no surprise that he's having difficulty in finding a position in his field. Were it so that the demand for biochemists (in or outside the life sciences industry) is so great that, like the 1990s demand for folks knowledgeable of ERP systems that merely being able to spell ERP was sometimes sufficient to get one a job, I might feel otherwise, up to a point. When demand is that high, if one cannot get a job, one is, for lack of a better term, a mess. That's nobody's fault but one's own.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

How to make that end come to fruition is out of scope for this thread. If you'd like to solicit ideas on how to make that happen, I encourage you to open a thread asking for ideas of that nature. This thread's aim is to discuss whether, in and of itself, the aim of enabling free college for qualified students is an aim we should endeavor to make happen.

 

[320 Years of History]

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?

1. I didn't answer because you posed the question to Asclepias not me.
2. I'm waiting to see whether your remarks with him with regard to the question you posed heads down the road of equivocation.
3. Though not in direct reply to your question, I have tacitly answered it already.

Assuming you two get into that line of discussion, and Asclepias doesn't offer what is my answer to the question, I'll offer it again.

 

[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.

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.

uh, no

that road got paid for and is paid for to maintain.

I don't live in CA so I should not pay for the roads there.

I won't use an artist to paint my walls so I shouldn't pay for one to go to college

 

[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.

uh, no

that road got paid for and is paid for to maintain.

I don't live in CA so I should not pay for the roads there.

I won't use an artist to paint my walls so I shouldn't pay for one to go to college

Yes, it is the road which maintains and not a payee who maintains it, otherwise there is no stable foundation for both to continue as expected.

I am speaking of Freedom, not of a place in which you may not belong or be welcome (such as the State in which I live).

You are free to do and think as you wish. The complete inclusion of Freedom, however, which you inelianably partake of, does not grant you the siding of Justice or Knowledge.

 

[2aguy]

No. I worked my way through school.....it is part of the process of getting that education in finding a way to actually get it......just handing it to people for free does nothing to help them.

And by the way....there is nothing for free and education is one of those things..........by making it free it will become worse, and more expensive.....

 

[Two Thumbs]

No. I worked my way through school.....it is part of the process of getting that education in finding a way to actually get it......just handing it to people for free does nothing to help them.

And by the way....there is nothing for free and education is one of those things..........by making it free it will become worse, and more expensive.....

thank you

college cost has out inflated everything we use. Why? b/c the government gives them so much of our money as it is

 

[Pop23]

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).

So, what you are saying is that the dumb should subsidize the smart?

Should the sick subsidize the healthy?

 

[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).

So, what you are saying is that the dumb should subsidize the smart?

Should the sick subsidize the healthy?

No, that is not what I was saying or asking.

What I was asking is, as I've plainly stated several times, this: should we, as a nation, aim to make a college education (or trade school one if that's what one chooses instead) free to qualified individuals?

Why that is such a difficult question, so difficult that folks either can't answer it plainly, or feel some need to recast it, is beyond me.

 

[Holos]

No. I worked my way through school.....it is part of the process of getting that education in finding a way to actually get it......just handing it to people for free does nothing to help them.

And by the way....there is nothing for free and education is one of those things..........by making it free it will become worse, and more expensive.....

It doesn't seem you have been very well educated (despite your emotionally charged claim of having "worked through it").

Any well educated person would be glad to have their continued learning enhanced for free (if they are capable of understanding the concept of Freedom) and would be far from denying the prospect of educational freedom and free education, as well as far from protecting themselves from such a generous and generating endeavor (which by the way is an established continuous contemporary fact and not just a pessimistic possibility).

 

[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).

So, what you are saying is that the dumb should subsidize the smart?

Should the sick subsidize the healthy?

No, that is not what I was saying or asking.

What I was asking is, as I've plainly stated several times, this: should we, as a nation, aim to make a college education (or trade school one if that's what one chooses instead) free to qualified individuals?

Why that is such a difficult question, so difficult that folks either can't answer it plainly, or feel some need to recast it, is beyond me.

The question is difficult because the answer is obvious (yes) and here we are in a debate zone envisioning to approach the path already decided and aimed at by presenting our varied thoughts.

The confusion arises because we all already agree that every single person should be educated regardless, because that is the only way to eliminate crime and anything else that comes along with it. Any sane individual is willing to pay more for whatever they have if that will effectively establish safety. It is no mystery. But here you are assuming the nation never had a direction to begin with, or if it had it never allowed or proceeded with an integrally comprehensive change for inclusion of all citizens. That is why there is confusion, because as the path has already begun to be formed and worked towards its establishment you are returning to a moment already conceded in advantage to the whole population and are retracting those steps already taken by the nation itself. Confusing, yes. Productive, not so much. Compassionate, possibly.