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

[Holos]

I will reiterate my point in few words.

I have not cast my vote in the poll because the reality is that THERE ALREADY IS A COLLEGE EDUCATION AVAILABLE FOR FREE TO ALL WHO QUALIFY, therefore there should not be one, as that would be a misguiding answer, but casting my vote as "no" in the poll would also be misguiding. Why? Because the point would not be to state my opinion or personal invested interest but in fact to educate, as any question concerning education should do (therefore rendering education free by its very nature).

Just think about the great geniuses in history. How do you think they get educated? For free! They go outdoors and observe the natural world and learn everything they want and need. C'mon, folks, just like any healthy child!

 

[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.

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.

Red:
I've never had difficulty answering a question for which I see the answer as an obvious "yes" or "no" answer to give.

Blue:
Do we agree that, as a nation, we should aim to make a college education free to all qualified applicants? The poll responses indicate that, among the folks who've answered the poll question, the U.S. should not so strive.

 

[320 Years of History]

I will reiterate my point in few words.

I have not cast my vote in the poll because the reality is that THERE ALREADY IS A COLLEGE EDUCATION AVAILABLE FOR FREE TO ALL WHO QUALIFY, therefore there should not be one, as that would be a misguiding answer, but casting my vote as "no" in the poll would also be misguiding. Why? Because the point would not be to state my opinion or personal invested interest but in fact to educate, as any question concerning education should do (therefore rendering education free by its very nature).

Just think about the great geniuses in history. How do you think they get educated? For free! They go outdoors and observe the natural world and learn everything they want and need. C'mon, folks, just like any healthy child!

Red:
If you believe that to be so, and you don't want it to disappear, I'd think you'd answer "yes" to the poll question. If you think the goal of making a college education free to all (any would be) qualified students has already been met and you think that's "a good thing," a thing our nation should retain, why not answer "yes" to the poll question?

 

[320 Years of History]

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.....

A college education is going to grow ever more expensive regardless of who pays for it. When was the last time you saw a trend of decreasing college tuitions?

For that matter, when was the last time you observed a trend for colleges to make the education the deliver worse than the ones the provided in the past? Are you aware of some "race to the bottom" in terms of the quality of education colleges and universities overall provide?

 

[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).

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.

Red:
I've never had difficulty answering a question for which I see the answer as an obvious "yes" or "no" answer to give.

Blue:
Do we agree that, as a nation, we should aim to make a college education free to all qualified applicants? The poll responses indicate that, among the folks who've answered the poll question, the U.S. should not so strive.

By the way you frame the op, not wanting anyone to discuss cost, its obvious that you support "free" college education. Of course having a more educated population is a good thing; however, it is impossible to have an unbiased debate about if "free" is the way to go if the cost cannot be considered. As many have already pointed out, someone will have to pay for this "free" education. If cost is considered, "free" may or may not be optimal.

 

[Tresha91203]

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.

Beause it is impossible. It is NOT free and can't be. Professors have to be paid, buildings have to be maintained, utilities have to be paid. It simply cannot be free. You may as well ask if we should all get pink unicorns. So what if we should ... we cant. What you are really asking is if we should subsidize college education but you wont say it.

I'm in a state that already does this. We are about to have to give it up because it is so expensive. This is how it worked here:

The big universities get a steady stream of freshmen every year, guaranteed. They build new facilities, expensive indoor olympic pools, hire more faculty and administration, etc. Most of those freshman never make junior. It was a good time and didnt cost them, so no biggie. Graduation rates dropped. We cant have that, so we weaken the standards to try to hold on to more kids. The value of the degree drops for all, even those students who paid full price.

Then gas prices drop and state revenues drop with it so we have to steal one-time funds from elsewhere in the budget to cover the costs. We also have to cut "secondary education" pretty harshly. The smaller universities get slammed. They didn't get the boon, but they take the brunt of the slashing. Now, their degrees are devalued too, not because of lowered standards, but for lack of resources.

Few are grateful for their free education. Half used it to avoid real life. No one sang praises to Louisiana for educating their kids, but there was a whole lot of screaming and protesting when the cuts hit. We can't afford it this year and the new governor is unwilling to use one-time funds AGAIN to keep TOPS afloat. He called an emergency session and they're still at it, but so far, it looks like TOPS gets defunded AND universities get slashed AGAIN. This has been the most expensive free I've ever seen.

 

[Holos]

I will reiterate my point in few words.

I have not cast my vote in the poll because the reality is that THERE ALREADY IS A COLLEGE EDUCATION AVAILABLE FOR FREE TO ALL WHO QUALIFY, therefore there should not be one, as that would be a misguiding answer, but casting my vote as "no" in the poll would also be misguiding. Why? Because the point would not be to state my opinion or personal invested interest but in fact to educate, as any question concerning education should do (therefore rendering education free by its very nature).

Just think about the great geniuses in history. How do you think they get educated? For free! They go outdoors and observe the natural world and learn everything they want and need. C'mon, folks, just like any healthy child!

Red:
If you believe that to be so, and you don't want it to disappear, I'd think you'd answer "yes" to the poll question. If you think the goal of making a college education free to all (any would be) qualified students has already been met and you think that's "a good thing," a thing our nation should retain, why not answer "yes" to the poll question?

Simple. As I said before, the vote is misguiding. It is not a vote (or many, for that matter) that will change the actual and permanently established circumstances of free education. I do not need any form of institutional organization to continue learning, nor do I believe anyone else needs it (although we are all capable of learning from any form of organization).

This thread, for example, could have been (could still be, and in fact is) 11 pages of free education. Why isn't it and wasn't it readily recognized as the free education that it actually is? Because of the uninformative and misguiding poll along with the poorly organized and hastily concluded introduction to the prospect of education in consideration of education's already incredibly well established principle (of at least a couple hundred years of providing continuity).

I refuse to vote for education when instead I must educate, because education is not and will not be a mere option or possibility, but is in reality the complete and substantiating essence of experience.

 

[320 Years of History]

I will reiterate my point in few words.

I have not cast my vote in the poll because the reality is that THERE ALREADY IS A COLLEGE EDUCATION AVAILABLE FOR FREE TO ALL WHO QUALIFY, therefore there should not be one, as that would be a misguiding answer, but casting my vote as "no" in the poll would also be misguiding. Why? Because the point would not be to state my opinion or personal invested interest but in fact to educate, as any question concerning education should do (therefore rendering education free by its very nature).

Just think about the great geniuses in history. How do you think they get educated? For free! They go outdoors and observe the natural world and learn everything they want and need. C'mon, folks, just like any healthy child!

Red:
If you believe that to be so, and you don't want it to disappear, I'd think you'd answer "yes" to the poll question. If you think the goal of making a college education free to all (any would be) qualified students has already been met and you think that's "a good thing," a thing our nation should retain, why not answer "yes" to the poll question?

Simple. As I said before, the vote is misguiding. It is not a vote (or many, for that matter) that will change the actual and permanently established circumstances of free education. I do not need any form of institutional organization to continue learning, nor do I believe anyone else needs it (although we are all capable of learning from any form of organization).

This thread, for example, could have been (could still be, and in fact is) 11 pages of free education. Why isn't it and wasn't it readily recognized as the free education that it actually is? Because of the uninformative and misguiding poll along with the poorly organized and hastily concluded introduction to the prospect of education in consideration of education's already incredibly well established principle (of at least a couple hundred years of providing continuity).

I refuse to vote for education when instead I must educate, because education is not and will not be a mere option or possibility, but is in reality the complete and substantiating essence of experience.

Purple:
Yes, you are correct. Voting in this poll won't alter anything concerning the means and modes of U.S. education. The poll is merely a convenient vehicle for expressing a stance with regard to the question posed.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of "aim?" Setting a goal, stating an intent to achieve an outcome, does not mean that one will achieve the goal, pursue it without a plan, not, at some point after setting and planning to achieve it, not opt to discard it, etc. Aiming to accomplish something is merely the first step.

As in the example of buying a home:

1. Establish the goal to (aim to) buy a home.
2. Plan to buy the home:
   1. Identify home and homesite requirements (short and long term)
   2. Identify financial requirements and constraints (both home acquisition and ownership)
   3. Identify gaps between requirements and what one can actually obtain (home or resources)
   4. Identify and choose modes and methods of gap closure, be it revising requirements or otherwise
3. Execute the plan (select a house, secure financing, etc.), modifying it as/if needed due to unforeseen obstacles that arise, or discard the original goal and perhaps choose a new one.

Now when buying a home on one's own, step one is quite easy. One says to oneself, "I want to buy a house," and that's it; step one began, ended and is completed. One has nobody else to whom one must answer in setting (aiming) and striving for that goal. That step one, in the example of one's singular home purchase, was so quick and simple to perform does not negate the fact that it occurred.

Regarding the question/topic I posed at this thread's outset, however, no one of us citizens is able to act alone to successfully achieve the noted objective; therefore before presenting/discussing plans for achieving the proposed outcome, there must be sufficient agreement that the outcome itself is one that merits attempting to achieve.

On the matter of making a college education free to qualified U.S. students, I'm not at all interested in discussing or proposing plans for making that happen among a community of argumentative and contentious USMB folks who aren't even interested in making that outcome happen. Look at the poll replies. Three people are interested in seeing that end come to fruition and eleven are not. (If only Presidents were to win their elections with such wide margins....) Were it that most folks who responded to the poll actually wanted to achieve the outcome, sure, I'd move to open a new thread to discuss plans for making it happen.

 

[2aguy]

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.

Beause it is impossible. It is NOT free and can't be. Professors have to be paid, buildings have to be maintained, utilities have to be paid. It simply cannot be free. You may as well ask if we should all get pink unicorns. So what if we should ... we cant. What you are really asking is if we should subsidize college education but you wont say it.

I'm in a state that already does this. We are about to have to give it up because it is so expensive. This is how it worked here:

The big universities get a steady stream of freshmen every year, guaranteed. They build new facilities, expensive indoor olympic pools, hire more faculty and administration, etc. Most of those freshman never make junior. It was a good time and didnt cost them, so no biggie. Graduation rates dropped. We cant have that, so we weaken the standards to try to hold on to more kids. The value of the degree drops for all, even those students who paid full price.

Then gas prices drop and state revenues drop with it so we have to steal one-time funds from elsewhere in the budget to cover the costs. We also have to cut "secondary education" pretty harshly. The smaller universities get slammed. They didn't get the boon, but they take the brunt of the slashing. Now, their degrees are devalued too, not because of lowered standards, but for lack of resources.

Few are grateful for their free education. Half used it to avoid real life. No one sang praises to Louisiana for educating their kids, but there was a whole lot of screaming and protesting when the cuts hit. We can't afford it this year and the new governor is unwilling to use one-time funds AGAIN to keep TOPS afloat. He called an emergency session and they're still at it, but so far, it looks like TOPS gets defunded AND universities get slashed AGAIN. This has been the most expensive free I've ever seen.

And this is why P.J. O'Rourke said of Free Healthcare, and it can also be said of free education...."If you think it is expensive now...wait till it's 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.

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​

As your "aim", and intent becomes more clear, I have to ask the question, "If, indeed, your idea is not currently being implimented, why not? If it is, then why are we having this discussion?" Seems to me that your idea of "free" college for qualified students is currently happening (ie Academic scholarships). While it may not be on the scale, or scope that you would like, it is none the less happening. So, I now must ask the question, "What, in your view, is preventing the scope and scale from increasing to the size you are proposing?"

 

[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​

As your "aim", and intent becomes more clear, I have to ask the question, "If, indeed, your idea is not currently being implimented, why not? If it is, then why are we having this discussion?" Seems to me that your idea of "free" college for qualified students is currently happening (ie Academic scholarships). While it may not be on the scale, or scope that you would like, it is none the less happening. So, I now must ask the question, "What, in your view, is preventing the scope and scale from increasing to the size you are proposing?"

An insufficient quantity of citizens demanding that, as a nation, we expand the scope of making a college/trade school education free to qualified students.

 

[oldsoul]

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​

As your "aim", and intent becomes more clear, I have to ask the question, "If, indeed, your idea is not currently being implimented, why not? If it is, then why are we having this discussion?" Seems to me that your idea of "free" college for qualified students is currently happening (ie Academic scholarships). While it may not be on the scale, or scope that you would like, it is none the less happening. So, I now must ask the question, "What, in your view, is preventing the scope and scale from increasing to the size you are proposing?"

An insufficient quantity of citizens demanding that, as a nation, we expand the scope of making a college/trade school education free to qualified students.

That was my conclusion as well. We live and operate in a competative world. In that world there are winners, and there are losers. Is this fair? no. Is this unfair? no. It just is, it is not fair that my wife, for example, was unable to attend college simply because she could not pay for it herself, her "step-father" made too much for finacial aid to be availabe, and he would not pay for it himself. It is not unfair either. I wish there would have been a way for her to attend college, however, then I likely would never have met her. So, "fairness" to her (ie free college), would have been "unfairness" to me (I would not have met the love of my life). See how things balance out? It is not perfect, but our world is not perfect, and never will be until a perfect entity rules every last facet of it.

 

[Asclepias]

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".

Thats not the first step in goal setting nor does it have any bearing on the OP.

 

[Asclepias]

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.

No the cost has nothing to do with deciding to pursue the goal of buying a home. Its a simple decision to say yes I am going to buy a home and then fill in the how later. I can tell you from personal experience I would have never bought my first home had I tried to figure out how I could afford the home first. I made the decision to do it then figured out how I was going to afford it.

 

[the_human_being]

 

[Asclepias]

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.

Thats the point. You shouldnt be debating the how. You should be making the decision yes or no to the question of if we should attempt to accomplish the goal of having a free college education for everyone that is a US citizen.

 

[Asclepias]

I will reiterate my point in few words.

I have not cast my vote in the poll because the reality is that THERE ALREADY IS A COLLEGE EDUCATION AVAILABLE FOR FREE TO ALL WHO QUALIFY, therefore there should not be one, as that would be a misguiding answer, but casting my vote as "no" in the poll would also be misguiding. Why? Because the point would not be to state my opinion or personal invested interest but in fact to educate, as any question concerning education should do (therefore rendering education free by its very nature).

Just think about the great geniuses in history. How do you think they get educated? For free! They go outdoors and observe the natural world and learn everything they want and need. C'mon, folks, just like any healthy child!

How come know one knows about this free college education? How does one get it?

 

[oldsoul]

No the cost has nothing to do with deciding to pursue the goal of buying a home.

So if the cost of a loaf of bread was 1 million dollars it would have no bearing on your lunch decision? You may still decide that your goal is to have a sandwich for lunch?

 

[Asclepias]

No the cost has nothing to do with deciding to pursue the goal of buying a home.

So if the cost of a loaf of bread was 1 million dollars it would have no bearing on your lunch decision? You may still decide that your goal is to have a sandwich for lunch?

Not if I desired to have a loaf of bread. Any goal in life is first achieved by making the decision to make it happen. You figure out the how along the way. Sometimes you fail but you get back up and go at it with a different approach.