Free college

Sometimes I wonder if a good solution would be to fund college education but only for fields that thenUS is hurting in or in short supply. While I certainly think there is some merit in studying the humanities, maybe it doesn’t rise to the level of being funded by the tax payers. Just thinking out loud.

Bullseye said:

Just a thought/question: IF the government is providing the "free college" how involved do they become in what's being taught there? For the most part these days academia has become a progressive monopoly, in many cases hostile to opposing thoughts or philosophies. Would that intensify or abate?

Click to expand...

Most conservative positions today are not a matter of ideology or opinion, but based on ignorance and blind adherence to obsolete traditional ideas. The earth is not 6000 years old, trickle down economics doesn’t work, poverty is more complex than just moral failure, there is no biological ideas of race, global warming is not a Chinese hoax, etc.... But if any professor tries to say stuff like that to their class, they are labeled as having liberal bias. It is not bias. It is just education.

ataraxia said:

Most conservative positions today are not a matter of ideology or opinion, but based on ignorance and blind adherence to obsolete traditional ideas.

Click to expand...

I might say the same about your position on conservatism.

ataraxia said:

The earth is not 6000 years old, trickle down economics doesn’t work, poverty is more complex than just moral failure, there is no biological ideas of race, global warming is not a Chinese hoax, etc.... But if any professor tries to say stuff like that to their class, they are labeled as having liberal bias. It is not bias. It is just education.

Click to expand...

You've been indoctrinated well, you're a fine example of what liberalism has degraded to.

ataraxia said:

Most conservative positions today are not a matter of ideology or opinion, but based on ignorance and blind adherence to obsolete traditional ideas. The earth is not 6000 years old, trickle down economics doesn’t work, poverty is more complex than just moral failure, there is no biological ideas of race, global warming is not a Chinese hoax, etc.... But if any professor tries to say stuff like that to their class, they are labeled as having liberal bias. It is not bias. It is just education.

Click to expand...

Can I safely assume your liberal educators taught you how to avoid answering legitimate questions? Speaking of spreading horse manure... You have NO clue as to what conservatism means and yes, your post above is full of liberal bias.

RabidAlpaca said:

I guess engineers, doctors, lawyers and hundreds of other jobs just make it up as they go along. You've already declared college has zero value of any kind, so I hope you cling to that next time you're laying on your back about to go under a scalpel.

Click to expand...

Listen Up: Failing does not mean that no good happened, it means that not enough good happened.

I voted no but I would like to be able to vote yes.

For one thing, not everyone wants to go to college nor is geared for that. So I'd like to see the $ offered for trade school as well.

But it's no because I believe that if it's free, alot of people will waste it. People often dont value (enough) what is free.

But if there were some other strict criteria to help qualify people, I might change my mind.

Free Community College?

Community College already is free (if you're wise). Students qualify for Pell Grants up to $6000 per year from the federal government, and possibly a single or couple thousand dollar worth of grants from their state, if applied. Then, as long as a student is enrolled at least half-time in school, they are eligible to receive about $6000-$8000 per year--no strings attached. My local Community College is $1500 per semester for full-time students, or $3000 per year.

Then, a student could go to Community College for 3 years, earn multiple associates degrees in disciplines that credential them for post-graduation jobs in the $40,000-$75,000 range; all free of charge, plus the government pays you $12,000 which you are able to invest in anyway you please--which, if you are savvy, is a strong basis for building more money, credit score, etc. etc.

The bigger question is; what is everyone complaining about? Why are they so unable to see the 'chess board' accurately and play a good game?

Hawkeye10 said:

Hell No.

In fact we should massively shrink the university system by depriving it of federal money.

Click to expand...

Yes, let's further dumb-down our electorate and shoot ourselves in the foot in terms of economic advantage (you think having less education makes us more competitive in the world economies?). Yes, that makes a ton of sense.... unless, of course, your goal is to build a 3rd world nation. With the election of our dictator in waiting (who appealed broadly to the less educated), seems to be something many (and maybe you) want.

upsideguy said:

Yes, let's further dumb-down our electorate and shoot ourselves in the foot in terms of economic advantage (you think having less education makes us more competitive in the world economies?). Yes, that makes a ton of sense.... unless, of course, your goal is to build a 3rd world nation. With the election of our dictator in waiting (who appealed broadly to the less educated), seems to be something many (and maybe you) want.

Click to expand...

I saw somewhere recently I cant remember maybe it was at DP someone say that the only thing they learned at University is how to get laid. Now this is probably an exaggeration but the fact that I need to seriously consider that this might actually be true because the University has failed tells me that we are blowing a ton of money (debt for a lot of folks) on something that is nowhere nears a good return on investment.

Here's what I know...

Current Republican/conservative thinking is to neglect schools except for those which indoctrinate their ideals.
The rest can just go drop dead far as they're concerned. The only education the Right will support is that which actively promotes their ideology to the exception of all others.

You have Republican voters who just don't like any Democrats and will always vote along party lines, you have the group “who feels that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens in their lives and their futures.” *

Regardless of whether or not they oppose liberalism, they're not necessarily ready to stand by and watch the rule of law or essential institutions of democracy itself boil away like so much doomed ancient Martian atmosphere.

And you have the "the deplorables" the “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it.” **

The first two groups I mentioned are also not all that willing to concede that they've backed a horse which represents a clear and present danger. They want their guy to have a chance, and many believe that no matter what, we're better off if he succeeds than if he fails. Thus they refuse to give in to any notion of removing him from office, at least not yet.

The last group is the loudest, and also happens to have the most soft money backing them, and they get the most media coverage. The Right is indignant that everyone else just sees them as the deplorables, so much so that they've instinctively decided to take over "The Deplorables" as their trademark in response.
They're lucky, because it is not their indignation that shields them, it's their fortunate circumstances and station in life.

Elsewise they wouldn't be so keen on adopting "The Deplorables" as their badge.

(* quotes both attributed to Hillary Clinton)

Hawkeye10 said:

I saw somewhere recently I cant remember maybe it was at DP someone say that the only thing they learned at University is how to get laid. Now this is probably an exaggeration but the fact that I need to seriously consider that this might actually be true because the University has failed tells me that we are blowing a ton of money (debt for a lot of folks) on something that is nowhere nears a good return on investment.

Click to expand...

So, an anecdote is all you think you need to change public policy. He may have learned how to "get laid".... I learned skills that led to a terrific career. BTW, I paid for some of my college with student loans. Not only did I pay the loans back in full, the taxes on my earnings paid the principal back 300x over. You like anecdotes, society has had a nice ROI in financing my college education.

Sorry, but I don't see how society benefits from not fully exercising the brain power of its people. Education helps people fully realize their potential and, by extension, a society to fully realize its potential.

Anything to raise my taxes more, anything that will allow these institutions of higher learning to raise their prices even more, yeah of course I'm all for it....NOT!

Should the Government provide free college?

The Government already provides pretty substantial student aid programs in which students can potentially go to College for free or a limited cost. Federal Grant programs are offered at around nearly $6000 per year, state grant programs with eligibility for 6 years, although they vary by state, are typically between $1000-$4000 per year with eligibility for 6 years, Stafford Loans go up to $60,000 for undergraduates disbursed with $12,500 per year basis, Perkins Loans for those with extreme need are several thousand per year, etc. etc.

Then, the average student is eligible for about $48,000 in grants (i.e. does not have to be paid back--"free money"), and $60,000 in low interest rate loans, which is a figure of $108,000 for undergraduate study alone--with more offered for graduate school students and those with demonstration of extreme financial need. If played right, one can attend a big state school program (e.g. like UCLA, Michigan, Ohio State, University of Florida, etc.) essentially free of cost or with limited low interest loans that one is allowed forgiveness on. Considering this, it seems that the 'average' person is very much unaware of the (rather generous) offers that the government already has guaranteed for them. One of the major issues, as I see it, is the dependency vs. independency status which links a person to their parents until they turn 24 years old. If this would change to 18 years old, then people would have a lot of opportunity and control over their lives with a potentially very bright future easily available--if planned and used in a sensible manner.