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

[hadit]

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?

I would have to decide to obtain a lunch before the cost of lunch materials (various food items, for example) came into play in my deciding what to actually eat for lunch.

I'm starting to understand why there are is such a lack of leadership. Everyone is stonewalled by how to get things accomplished instead of jumping in and making it happen.

Ready! Fire! Aim! That's why.

 

[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?

I would have to decide to obtain a lunch before the cost of lunch materials (various food items, for example) came into play in my deciding what to actually eat for lunch.

I'm starting to understand why there are is such a lack of leadership. Everyone is stonewalled by how to get things accomplished instead of jumping in and making it happen.

Ready! Fire! Aim! That's why.

Another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

 

[hadit]

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?

I would have to decide to obtain a lunch before the cost of lunch materials (various food items, for example) came into play in my deciding what to actually eat for lunch.

I'm starting to understand why there are is such a lack of leadership. Everyone is stonewalled by how to get things accomplished instead of jumping in and making it happen.

Ready! Fire! Aim! That's why.

Another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

Knowing nothing about your wife, and not needing to, I make the following comments assuming upon getting her high school diploma/GED, she would have met the criteria identified in my OP.

I agree that the anecdote you shared isn't about what is or is not fair. It does, however, identify what can be thought of as an unfortunate outcome of circumstances. It also suggests, but doesn't confirm or deny, that there is likely unexploited potential with regard to what your wife may be/have been capable of and what, because she didn't get a degree, potential wasn't used.

I cannot say whether yours or her life, or your lives together, would be better or worse had she obtained a college education. I can only say that the odds of her accumulated financial wealth being greater, and the range of ideas and opportunities to which she'd have been exposed, would have been better had she gotten a college degree soon after obtaining her diploma/GED. Would that have that increased potential done her any good? With any certainty, I, like everyone else, cannot say; that ship has sailed, as it were.

If you and she have made the most of the opportunities that came you way, I applaud you. As for whether you and she are content with the lives you lead. If you are, I'm happy for you. That's certainly important; however, it doesn't at all speak to whether there exists unused, unbenefitted from, potential. Whether it's your wife, myself, my kids, someone whom I don't and won't know, etc., I view unused human potential as a waste and thus an unfortunate outcome.

The point of my proposed idea is to suggest a means that, as an outcome in and of itself, minimizes the loss of human potential by helping to ensure that everyone who shows above average intellectual potential receives the fullest support for availing themselves, and by extension their country, of it. I realize that every choice results in some "road not taken." There's no doubt that implicit in the proposal is the assumption that by receiving a college education, one who wants one is better able to identify their own personal potential that most deserves to be built upon and developed into realized benefits, for themselves, their family, their community and their country.

 

[Asclepias]

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?

I would have to decide to obtain a lunch before the cost of lunch materials (various food items, for example) came into play in my deciding what to actually eat for lunch.

I'm starting to understand why there are is such a lack of leadership. Everyone is stonewalled by how to get things accomplished instead of jumping in and making it happen.

Ready! Fire! Aim! That's why.

Another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

 

[hadit]

I would have to decide to obtain a lunch before the cost of lunch materials (various food items, for example) came into play in my deciding what to actually eat for lunch.

I'm starting to understand why there are is such a lack of leadership. Everyone is stonewalled by how to get things accomplished instead of jumping in and making it happen.

Ready! Fire! Aim! That's why.

Another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

 

[320 Years of History]

I'm starting to understand why there are is such a lack of leadership. Everyone is stonewalled by how to get things accomplished instead of jumping in and making it happen.

Ready! Fire! Aim! That's why.

Another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

 

[oldsoul]

Ready! Fire! Aim! That's why.

Another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

 

[320 Years of History]

Another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

It's reasonable that one would infer there is an assumed problem being addressed by the goal's mere existence. However, there doesn't have to be. Looking again our "house" example from earlier, one might determine to buy a house even though one has or hasn't a house, and the goal of buying one may not seek to overcome a problem. I think it's reasonable to say, that notwithstanding that abstraction/analogy, the goal of making college free to qualified individuals is intended to overcome a problem, or at least a deficiency, even if that deficiency doesn't rise to, so called, "problem status."

 

[Asclepias]

I'm starting to understand why there are is such a lack of leadership. Everyone is stonewalled by how to get things accomplished instead of jumping in and making it happen.

Ready! Fire! Aim! That's why.

Another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

No it doesnt specify a solution. It merely prompts the reader to make a decision. I honestly don't see how hard it is to understand this....

"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."

 

[320 Years of History]

Ready! Fire! Aim! That's why.

Another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

No it doesnt specify a solution. It merely prompts the reader to make a decision.

"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."

Red:
Spot on!!!!

Other:
I have to say, if nothing else, this thread has informed me of whom among us are structured thinkers who have a clear understanding of the process of setting and acting to achieve outcomes. That's not to say or suggest (derisively) those who aren't structured, well organized thinkers don't or cannot achieve goals, only that they show a willingness to overlook or discount steps in the noted process.

 

[Asclepias]

Another logical fallacy of false equivalence.

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

Even if that were true hadit should be addressing the question and not something he/she saw as an implication. Step one is making the decision to set a goal.

 

[oldsoul]

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

Even if that were true hadit should be addressing the question and not something he/she saw as an implication. Step one is making the decision to set a goal.

The point that I, and I believe hadit, are trying to make is that one has to define the problem, before attempting to solve it. I would agree that step one is the decision to set a goal, after one decides that it would be in one's best interests to address a given situation, and one has defined said situation. If you have not done these two things setting a goal is impossible. Take the housing senario, if one does not decide that it is in ones' best interest to have housing (defining the problem), it would never occur to one to set a goal of buying a house.

 

[Asclepias]

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

Even if that were true hadit should be addressing the question and not something he/she saw as an implication. Step one is making the decision to set a goal.

The point that I, and I believe hadit, are trying to make is that one has to define the problem, before attempting to solve it. I would agree that step one is the decision to set a goal, after one decides that it would be in one's best interests to address a given situation, and one has defined said situation. If you have not done these two things setting a goal is impossible. Take the housing senario, if one does not decide that it is in ones' best interest to have housing (defining the problem), it would never occur to one to set a goal of buying a house.

Everything doesnt have to be a problem to make a decision. Take your buying a house example. You may decide to buy a house without having any problems. I didnt have any problems when I decided to buy my first, second, or third houses. I just wanted to do it.

 

[hadit]

Not so. Charging full speed ahead to solve a problem without figuring out HOW to solve that problem usually doesn't solve the problem.

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

Even if that were true hadit should be addressing the question and not something he/she saw as an implication. Step one is making the decision to set a goal.

And my question is, why are you setting that goal in the first place? Setting a pointless goal is, well, pointless, and the very fact that you want us to consider pursuing it implies that you think it's a worthy goal. Why do you think it is a goal worth pursuing?

 

[Asclepias]

That has nothing to do with making the decision to solve a problem. That step always comes first.

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

Even if that were true hadit should be addressing the question and not something he/she saw as an implication. Step one is making the decision to set a goal.

And my question is, why are you setting that goal in the first place? Setting a pointless goal is, well, pointless, and the very fact that you want us to consider pursuing it implies that you think it's a worthy goal. Why do you think it is a goal worth pursuing?

Who said it was pointless? You were just asked to answer the question. You dont answer a question with a question unless you require clarification of what the question is asking. Its pretty cut and dried so there should be no need for clarification.

 

[hadit]

One problem with that. The thread title explicitly specifies a solution, not a problem to be solved. Which do you want? It seems to me that the problem is the high cost of a secondary education, and you are leaping right into discussing one solution, which is to make it available to some people at no cost to themselves. That eliminates from the start any other solutions and leads directly into discussion about how to pay for it.

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

Even if that were true hadit should be addressing the question and not something he/she saw as an implication. Step one is making the decision to set a goal.

And my question is, why are you setting that goal in the first place? Setting a pointless goal is, well, pointless, and the very fact that you want us to consider pursuing it implies that you think it's a worthy goal. Why do you think it is a goal worth pursuing?

Who said it was pointless? You were just asked to answer the question. You dont answer a question with a question unless you require clarification of what the question is asking. Its pretty cut and dried so there should be no need for clarification.

A goal is pointless if you have no reason for setting it. You set a goal to lose weight, if you are overweight. Otherwise, why bother? You set a goal to stop smoking if you are a smoker. Otherwise, why bother? You want society to set a goal of secondary education at no cost to the student if you think it's too expensive now. Otherwise, why bother? Now, if you believe it is too expensive, you've identified a problem and your "goal" is a solution to that problem.

 

[Asclepias]

I think you, hadit are confusing "solutions" with "goals." The thread (title/OP) identifies a goal/aim, not a solution, and, FWIW, it doesn't identify a problem either. A solution is a means to arriving at a goal, or overcoming obstacles to arriving at a goal.

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

Even if that were true hadit should be addressing the question and not something he/she saw as an implication. Step one is making the decision to set a goal.

And my question is, why are you setting that goal in the first place? Setting a pointless goal is, well, pointless, and the very fact that you want us to consider pursuing it implies that you think it's a worthy goal. Why do you think it is a goal worth pursuing?

Who said it was pointless? You were just asked to answer the question. You dont answer a question with a question unless you require clarification of what the question is asking. Its pretty cut and dried so there should be no need for clarification.

A goal is pointless if you have no reason for setting it. You set a goal to lose weight, if you are overweight. Otherwise, why bother? You set a goal to stop smoking if you are a smoker. Otherwise, why bother? You want society to set a goal of secondary education at no cost to the student if you think it's too expensive now. Otherwise, why bother? Now, if you believe it is too expensive, you've identified a problem and your "goal" is a solution to that problem.

No goal is pointless and there is always a reason for it. However that reason does not have to be a problem. To use your example plenty of people make a goal to lose or gain weight for a number of reasons. You may lose or gain weight to play a role in a film for example. You may lose or gain weight to look different. Your claim that there has to be a problem to create a goal lacks evidence of being true. All that aside the question is not about the reason. Its about the decision no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

 

[hadit]

While the OP does not expressly state that there is a problem, the fact that we are discussing "free" tuition for certain individuals (whether or not they can pay themselves), implies that there is a problem to be solved (ie better access to higher education). One could then conclude that your "aim/goal" is to address said problem. That is what hadit is trying to address, IMHO.

Even if that were true hadit should be addressing the question and not something he/she saw as an implication. Step one is making the decision to set a goal.

And my question is, why are you setting that goal in the first place? Setting a pointless goal is, well, pointless, and the very fact that you want us to consider pursuing it implies that you think it's a worthy goal. Why do you think it is a goal worth pursuing?

Who said it was pointless? You were just asked to answer the question. You dont answer a question with a question unless you require clarification of what the question is asking. Its pretty cut and dried so there should be no need for clarification.

A goal is pointless if you have no reason for setting it. You set a goal to lose weight, if you are overweight. Otherwise, why bother? You set a goal to stop smoking if you are a smoker. Otherwise, why bother? You want society to set a goal of secondary education at no cost to the student if you think it's too expensive now. Otherwise, why bother? Now, if you believe it is too expensive, you've identified a problem and your "goal" is a solution to that problem.

No goal is pointless and there is always a reason for it. However that reason does not have to be a problem. To use your example plenty of people make a goal to lose or gain weight for a number of reason. You may lose weight to play a role in a film for example. Your claim that there has to be a problem to create a goal lacks evidence of being true. All that aside the question is not about the reason. Its about the decision no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

Whether you call it a problem or not, even in your example there is a reason to set and pursue the goal. You want America to decide to pursue this goal. For what reason should America do that? Or do you maintain there is no reason to do this? If there's no reason to do it, I, and most everyone else, would say no.

 

[oldsoul]

Even if that were true hadit should be addressing the question and not something he/she saw as an implication. Step one is making the decision to set a goal.

And my question is, why are you setting that goal in the first place? Setting a pointless goal is, well, pointless, and the very fact that you want us to consider pursuing it implies that you think it's a worthy goal. Why do you think it is a goal worth pursuing?

Who said it was pointless? You were just asked to answer the question. You dont answer a question with a question unless you require clarification of what the question is asking. Its pretty cut and dried so there should be no need for clarification.

A goal is pointless if you have no reason for setting it. You set a goal to lose weight, if you are overweight. Otherwise, why bother? You set a goal to stop smoking if you are a smoker. Otherwise, why bother? You want society to set a goal of secondary education at no cost to the student if you think it's too expensive now. Otherwise, why bother? Now, if you believe it is too expensive, you've identified a problem and your "goal" is a solution to that problem.

No goal is pointless and there is always a reason for it. However that reason does not have to be a problem. To use your example plenty of people make a goal to lose or gain weight for a number of reason. You may lose weight to play a role in a film for example. Your claim that there has to be a problem to create a goal lacks evidence of being true. All that aside the question is not about the reason. Its about the decision no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

Whether you call it a problem or not, even in your example there is a reason to set and pursue the goal. You want America to decide to pursue this goal. For what reason should America do that? Or do you maintain there is no reason to do this? If there's no reason to do it, I, and most everyone else, would say no.

Couldn't have said it better.