• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Shouldn't Adults Getting a College Education Pay for it Themselves?

Should College Students Bear the Full Cost of Their Own Education?


  • Total voters
    27
You need credit or someone to co-sign to get any loan. I've tried to apply for a loan 3 times in the past 4 years. I've been turned down every single time because I do not have the credit nor have a co-signer.

Were these loans federally guaranteed student loans? I believe that absolutely anyone can get federal student loans through getting accepted to a school and filling out a FAFSA.

Applying for Federal Direct Loans

Who said anything about "not working" or having kids at 17? I'm 34 years old and would like to go to college. I've got 2 kids and a wife and we are barely making our bills. What do I do?

Take out the loans I mentioned above. If you don't want to do that, then I don't know what to tell you.

Do you seriously think that no citizen pays for public education? I pay a land tax that helps support our schools every 6 months.

Where did I say that no citizen pays for public education? I think it's pretty obvious that I acknowledged that we do, considering that that's where the money to fund these schools come from. How else would they be funded?

What I was referring to is what we've been talking about in this thread - the fact that students can get almost two decades worth of education while bearing an absolutely minuscule portion of the cost.
 
We are not trying to benefit the State. The state has no money to give. State money is my money and your money that it took from us. It is the money of the people.

And the State is the embodiment of the will of the people. It takes our money in the fashion we have lawfully authorized to fund those programs which we have lawfully empowered it to conduct. The State and the people are not separate entities and they are not at odds; what benefits the State benefits the people and vice versa.

Now unless you are personally willing to financially undergird the education of strangers then it makes no sense for you to support the State paying for it.

I'm personally willing to pay my taxes just like everybody else. And if I were fortunate enough to live in a higher tax bracket, I would still be happy to pay my taxes and happy that they would pay for programs like this that would benefit all Americans-- and especially productive, working Americans-- rather than Welfare and corporate bailouts that primarily benefit parasites that feed off of our honest labor and innovation.
 
How is it ignorant? You believe that people should have kids before they are ready to actually take care of them and provide for them?

It's ignorant to think that you can't raise kids on minimum wage.
 
It's ignorant to think that you can't raise kids on minimum wage.

No one said it was impossible, it's simply much more difficult and since the thread is discussing people who are also trying to get an education on minimum wage, that makes it much, much, much more difficult and frankly, irresponsible. Exactly how is someone supposed to work and attend school *AND* actually be involved in their child's life?

The only responsible option is to put off having children until you're out of school and financially sound.
 
Were these loans federally guaranteed student loans? I believe that absolutely anyone can get federal student loans through getting accepted to a school and filling out a FAFSA.

Admittedly no they were not. I'll check into it.


Where did I say that no citizen pays for public education? I think it's pretty obvious that I acknowledged that we do, considering that that's where the money to fund these schools come from. How else would they be funded?

What I was referring to is what we've been talking about in this thread - the fact that students can get almost two decades worth of education while bearing an absolutely minuscule portion of the cost.

So do you expect students that are not considered adults to pay for k-12?

Sorry but you're kind of making it sound like they should feel privileged that they don't have to pay for it.
 
It's ignorant to think that you can't raise kids on minimum wage.

Ok then, if people want to support a family on minimum wage, then they should use their minimum wage to support their family instead of going off to college.

If people want to go to college and get the education necessary to earn more than minimum wage, they should do that BEFORE they start a family.

If people start a family while making minimum wage, and then find that they don't have enough left over to pay for college, then they should just sit there and regret that they didn't have the foresight to go to college before deciding to have kids.
 
No one said it was impossible, it's simply much more difficult and since the thread is discussing people who are also trying to get an education on minimum wage, that makes it much, much, much more difficult and frankly, irresponsible. Exactly how is someone supposed to work and attend school *AND* actually be involved in their child's life?

The only responsible option is to put off having children until you're out of school and financially sound.

Lots of mothers do all of those all of the time. While they're single even. And you're just accounting for young kids fresh out of high school. What about those in their 30's-40's? The ones that for some reason or other didn't need to go to college for what ever reason? Remember there was a time quite recently even that a degree wasn't required for practically every single job out there.

Just because it is "more" difficult does not mean that they are being "irresponsible".
 
Wow, where are you getting your condoms? $50 each?

Costco man. You have to buy them in packs of 200, but hey, who wants to have to pick up condoms more than once a week anyway?;)
 
Ok then, if people want to support a family on minimum wage, then they should use their minimum wage to support their family instead of going off to college.

If people want to go to college and get the education necessary to earn more than minimum wage, they should do that BEFORE they start a family.

If people start a family while making minimum wage, and then find that they don't have enough left over to pay for college, then they should just sit there and regret that they didn't have the foresight to go to college before deciding to have kids.

Situations change and no one can plan for everything, much less plan for the unexpected.
 
Situations change and no one can plan for everything, much less plan for the unexpected.

No, but you can plan to not have kids until you can afford them.
 
You can afford them at minimum wage.

Good. Then they can pay for their own college education. Where's the issue?
 
I would eliminate government grants but increase what they put into loans. I could not get enough in loans during undergrad to not work while in school. Some people need that extra time (e.g. engineering students), and some don’t (e.g. business students). So the ceiling on loans needs to be raised and what the government should pay for is all of the interest, including when they're out of school provided reasonable progress is being made on the principle.

The reason I would eliminate government grants is two-fold. First, people don’t really take ownership of their education if they’re just given money. If you had a full ride somewhere, would you even think about trying to graduate early? Second, you can cover more people more efficiently by just paying for their interest, rather than giving them money directly. Of course I wouldn’t be opposed to grants from private sources, but government completely subsidizing the interest only seems like the best compromise for taxpayers.

And they're going to have to make every one of those other payments regardless of whether they attend college or not.

Look at it this way: Even if the person only makes barely enough money to survive, they can take out the entire cost of their tuition in guaranteed federal loans. How is the up front cost preventing them from doing anything?

Because school is a full-time plus job if they take it seriously, and if they're already going all-out at work just to get by, how do you expect them to devote themselves to the education? You can’t just talk about tuition when talking about the financial costs and barriers to education. They are foregoing employment in order to get education, so cost of living must be accounted for.
 
You need credit or someone to co-sign to get any loan. I've tried to apply for a loan 3 times in the past 4 years. I've been turned down every single time because I do not have the credit nor have a co-signer.



Who said anything about "not working" or having kids at 17? I'm 34 years old and would like to go to college. I've got 2 kids and a wife and we are barely making our bills. What do I do?



Again, not everyone is qualified for a loan.



Do you seriously think that no citizen pays for public education? I pay a land tax that helps support our schools every 6 months.

I was 31 with a wife and 2 kids when I started college. I went to NIGHT SCHOOL. Took me 8 years to get 108 credits. I was getting half time GI bill while my employer actually picked up the tab.. Oh yeah, that means I had a JOB during the day. So did my wife for most of that time. She spent her first year of this time period going full time during the day while the kids were in school. She already had 3 years of college, so that one year was enough to get her teaching degree. Then she started teaching full time, same year the youngest started first grade. Since getting her bachelor's degree, she has picked up a masters and an administrator's certificate by going to night classes. Grandparents did some baby sitting for us, and we hired some teenagers for some after school time periods. I was also in the Navy Reserve at the time. We were very busy, but we found a way to do it.
BTW, I never got the degree, but the courses taken helped me excell on the job and that was enough by itself.
You don't have to get a degree to get an education. I have worked with degreed engineers who were basically stupid. They got the degree, but not an education....
Now we are retired, own 2 houses, and are paying school/property taxes with no kids going to school. In other words, we are subsidizing others people's kids get their high school education, and happy to do it.
We paid nearly all of our 2 kids college educations (parentship), they had a little help with academic scholarships plus they worked part time. We are now helping our 38 year old teacher son get his administrators certificate so he can become a principal.

But all that is just how we did it. Surely you can do some of the same?
 
Admittedly no they were not. I'll check into it.

In all seriousness, good luck. As far as I know, federal student loans are guaranteed to any and everyone attending school. For someone in your position who is not a dependent, you should be able to get a maximum of $57,500 for undergraduate studies, which can be used to cover room and board in addition to tuition. In addition, up to $23,000 of that will be subsidized, so you won't pay interest on that while you're in school.

So do you expect students that are not considered adults to pay for k-12?

Sorry but you're kind of making it sound like they should feel privileged that they don't have to pay for it.

I don't expect that and I don't mean to imply that I do. My main point is this: Public education is heavily subsidized here in the US, as it is in most countries. I think that's a good thing. Everyone in the country, legal or not, is entitled to 13 years of completely free education. After that, everyone is entitled to attend a public university at a heavily subsidized rate. While the tuition costs are not as heavily subsidized as they are in some other countries, I think they're still quite generous. I also think there is a benefit to ensuring that people contribute something to that cost. Furthermore, the fact that we have such a wide array of loans and grants that are available to almost anyone helps to ensure that anyone who really wants to attend school is able to do so.

I would eliminate government grants but increase what they put into loans. I could not get enough in loans during undergrad to not work while in school. Some people need that extra time (e.g. engineering students), and some don’t (e.g. business students). So the ceiling on loans needs to be raised and what the government should pay for is all of the interest, including when they're out of school provided reasonable progress is being made on the principle.

The reason I would eliminate government grants is two-fold. First, people don’t really take ownership of their education if they’re just given money. If you had a full ride somewhere, would you even think about trying to graduate early? Second, you can cover more people more efficiently by just paying for their interest, rather than giving them money directly. Of course I wouldn’t be opposed to grants from private sources, but government completely subsidizing the interest only seems like the best compromise for taxpayers.

Because school is a full-time plus job if they take it seriously, and if they're already going all-out at work just to get by, how do you expect them to devote themselves to the education? You can’t just talk about tuition when talking about the financial costs and barriers to education. They are foregoing employment in order to get education, so cost of living must be accounted for.

First, you can get loans to cover living expenses. Second, school isn't always a full-time job. I worked 20-30 hours/week throughout undergrad and I knew plenty of others who did as well. Third, even if school is a full-time job, students who want to devote more time to their jobs can attend part-time. Fourth, it's always possible to do both at once - my mom ran a house and a farm while getting a degree in equine studies, all at age 40.
 
Any particular reason the students can't transfer to a college they can afford, or, barring that, getting a job and saving the money until they have the funds to pay for their own tuition?

I don't recall owing them a college education.

Enough rightwing bull****.

Title 4 funds are there to help Americans educate themselves. If you do not like it, you are free to hop on the next plane to France.
 
Americans could do worse than move to France.

The current exchange rate is around $1.50 to the Euro.

"A basic fee for an undergraduate course in 2009/10 is €171 per year; for a masters course it is €231 per year; for a doctorate it is €350 per year."

French University Student Tuition Fees in France
 
Americans could do worse than move to France.

The current exchange rate is around $1.50 to the Euro.

"A basic fee for an undergraduate course in 2009/10 is €171 per year; for a masters course it is €231 per year; for a doctorate it is €350 per year."

French University Student Tuition Fees in France

And how much do people get taxed to pay for those low fees? You don't get anything for free.
 
Any particular reason the students can't transfer to a college they can afford, or, barring that, getting a job and saving the money until they have the funds to pay for their own tuition?

I don't recall owing them a college education.

This is a larger fundamental problem as it is hitting State institutions. Unlike private institutions, those owned by the State tended to have much lower tuition exactly for the reason of being able to provide higher education accessible by a larger majority of the people. This isn't limited to just California, all over higher education costs are sky-rocketing. The problem is that if state institutions begin to approach that of private on the whole, you will begin to restrict who is able to go to college and thus have access to other jobs and social mobility (which has already been incredibly restricted).

I would have much rather my money went to subsidize public education so that people could continue going to school during this economic downturn that having my money go to the elite in banking and industry as to remove the consequence of their actions.
 
Of course adults should, but let's face it, how many real adults do you know?;)

Plenty, I'm a United States Navy submarine veteran.

I believe I read that the reason for college costs going up so much in Cali is to help alleviate the out-of-control budget deficits.:shock: The way things are going in California (if news reports are right), I think I would consider going to school out of state. It may be less expensive.

The reason college costs in California are going up is because the state can't afford to be everyone's nanny anymore, and some of the older babies are crying and in dire need of diaper changes.
 
Indeed. Nothing is free, no matter how much it is in the State's interests to ensure that it is accessible. Perhaps it is a good thing that we are reminded how much it truly costs.

It is accessible.

All a person has to do is pass the tests and put up the cash, and they're in.

Of course, some people are too stupid to pass the tests, and one of the reasons college costs so much these days is that these stupid people get into school anyway. Think about Plankton in Bikini Bottom always whining about how he "went to college", and yet the Chum Bucket never prospers.

I knew a lot of broadcasting graduates...working at K-Mart as clerks.

If a person can't pay for college right out of high school, there's always the military. They can grow up, see the world, and save money for their schooling, too.
 
There wasn't a no answer I liked, so I used one of the ones that was there. I see nothing wrong with grant money and federal subsidized loans for college. It's somewhat of an investment on the government's part. Someone with a college degree is probably going to make more money over their lifetime and thus generate more tax revenue for the government.

I've no strong objection to federal loans, outside of their unconstitutional nature, provided that jail time is part of the penalty for failure to repay.
 
No one is owed anything, but if the govt is really interested in increasing the number of adults with college degrees and booting the number of better jobs in the US, there's no reason why they shouldn't lower college tuition costs, especially considering what a lot of this tuition money ends up being wasted on by these colleges.

Reason One:

Private universities should not be mircomanaged by the fools in Washington. Private universities belong to someone, and it's up to that someone to set the prices in a competitive and free market.

Free markets have their own natural mechanisms for shedding waste.

Reason Two:

The Federal government doesn't have the authority to subsidize or run schools of any type outside of the US military. Read the Constitution.

The fact that so many students have to take out loans just to get an education shows just how crazy public college tuition is. Plenty of capable people don't go to college just because of the money issue,

Life's a bitch, ain't it?

I fail to see where their failure is my problem that I have to pay for.

I know someone, know him well, who didn't have the money to go to college from high school. So he joined the Navy and learned how to run a nuclear power plant. Then when his term was over, he went to college on his own damn money.

What a concept.

while at the same time, plenty of kids with well-off parents go to college, spend the whole time partying, and just drop out and end up working at McDonald's.

A classmate of mine finished all the coursework, spending five years on a four year aerospace engineering degree at a private university, and refused to turn in her final aircraft design report. That F prevented her from getting a diploma, and guess what?

It's her problem, and her old man's, not the taxpayers.

Who knows, maybe if the govt had reasonable college costs, the HS dropout rate would go down too.

The reasonable cost to the government of anyone's education is zero dollars.

It's the parents' responsibility, and the student's, to get educated, not the taxpayers.

If people want to drop out of high school, it's their life, isn't it? If we sent the invading hordes of Mexico back home, these dropouts would be able to find work.

Because when the purpose of HS is to prepare for college and many of these lower-income class students know they probably can't afford college anyway, it kind of destroys much of the incentive to even care about finishing HS.

Well, if they're quitters, they're losers, and taxpayers shouldn't be funding mediocrity anyway.

You can't teach kids responsibility when you don't even give them the opportunity to use it by jacking up tuition costs so much that a kid is more motivated just to get a fast food job.

Their life, their choice.

I'd love to see free public college tuition like they have in Sweden myself.

It's not free.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom